Photographer Hassled by Police

[CountryBoy]

Seems to me , he was within his rights. I think the police overreacted .


http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8621838

There's also a video clip about it, on that page.

[Miyagi-san]

Rediculous...good for that guy for standing his ground....or trying to anyway.

[Anke]

Perfectly within his rights if he was on public ground and the Police have no rights at all to make him delete the images, unless they get approval from the high court or something. I think that Officer is going to be in hot water today.

[JBerlotti]

It's unfortunate there are officers like this. As a Policeman (Air Force) myself it irks me there are guys like that out there screwing it up for the 99% of Officers who are out there doing right. One bad apple kinda thing... As a photog myself I guess I am a lot more forgiving. Unless they are taking pictures inside a restricted area, then they get pistol whipped! KIDDING!!! But yes, if they determine civil rights were violated that officer is going to be FUBAR big time!

[EORI]

Not quite Rodney King, but what's up with the screaming and knocking the guy's helmet off and cuffing him? All for trying to take a picture in a public area of a crime that's being committed? I hate to think what they did to the actual criminal.

It's a tough job being a cop, but that kind of behavior only belongs in third-world fascist state.

[dispatchermike21]

I would have liked to be there taking pic's of what happened to him what BS.

[nicksan]

I am sure the Police Office was in a happy go lucky mood after chasing a crazy dude in a SUV going 120 mph, as was stated in the article.

Just what he needed...some "Professional" photog and school teacher educated on his rights to refuse to listen to his requests.

I am not sure how I feel about this. While I agree that the officer in question went over the line, he did ask the photog to delete the photos, right or wrong. He was probably overreacting, sure, but he was just done with a 120mph chase and perhaps he has no patience dealing with some pain in the arse photog.

[Shutterbug Doug]

I am sure the Police Office was in a happy go lucky mood after chasing a crazy dude in a SUV going 120 mph, as was stated in the article.

Just what he needed...some "Professional" photog and school teacher educated on his rights to refuse to listen to his requests.

I am not sure how I feel about this. While I agree that the officer in question went over the line, he did ask the photog to delete the photos, right or wrong. He was probably overreacting, sure, but he was just done with a 120mph chase and perhaps he has no patience dealing with some pain in the arse photog.
I get no quarter from the police and the deserve none in return. I don't care if they just got through arguing with their girlfriend/wife. Like me getting a ticket for laying drags after an argument I had with my girlfriend once many years ago. The law has no sympathy for your emotional state, if that were the case jealous spouses who kill their other halves would get off every time.
Sure police work can be taxing on your mental state but they are supposed to be professional in all instances and are held to higher standard, as they should be, since guns are part of their uniforms. Mental stability and mental rigidness is all part of their training for a good reason.

[Lowner]

Sling the "officer" inside and throw away the key. They are there only by the sufferance of the community, but sadly they seem to have forgotten that fact.

Apparently there was a recent TV interview with a JFK airport PR man, where he was apologising "on air" for some previous mindless behavior by uniforms and the same uniformed thugs made them stop! Probably made good TV.

While the US is one of the worst, here in the UK we are catching the same disease, with some of the Olympics development sites being policed by "private security" and "toy policemen" who seem to ignore the law. It has also been reported in shopping areas in central London recently. Again with "toy police" rather than the real thing.

Richard

[nicksan]

I agree that cops needs to excercise emotional indifference but at the same time I think we would all agree that a lot of photog feel entitled or the right to be anywhere, anytime and if they don't get their way, they act like cry babies.

It's easy to say stuff like that. It's like those people who oppose the death penalty. I ask those people, what if you were the victim...perhaps the criminal raped/tortured/murdered your entire family. Let's see how rational you are then...

The fact is, being a police officer IS different than an office job or a photography job. They put their lives on the line. Sure they are bad seeds everywhere, but man, give them a break. I have cop friends who always complain that because of all this crap, they can't even do their jobs without worrying about getting sued, etc.

Hey, I love photography just as much, but when a cop asks me to put my camera away or to not take pictures, my rights or not, I choose to put my stuff away.

Then again, maybe next time I can refuse, and hopefully the cop will violate my rights so I can then complain to the local paper and maybe sue the city and live on someone else's dime. Yes..the American Way.:rolleyes:

[Lowner]

Nicksan,

No, I refuse to "cut them some slack". They expect to be treated differently to the rest of Society. So be it, but it works both ways, if they want my respect, then it has to be earned. And behaving like this is NOT why I'm helping pay their salarys.

Richard

[nicksan]

I agree that a cop on a power trip is the worse thing.

However, I feel we should actually treat them differently simply because most of us don't put our lives on the line to do ours jobs. I know I don't Not even close.

They do.

I understand what you are saying. The qualification to get into the force is not what you call stringent...and frankly I know a few guys I am surprised that they became cops. Totally not trust worthy individuals. That's reality. They are cops who don't give a crap about the what they do. There are also cops who abuse their supposid power. That is indeed dangerous.

Do I want my tax money to pay for cops dealing with nosy photogs? Hell no. I want them to protect people, prevent crimes, catch criminals...not spend that time arguing with press rights with a photog.

Was what he did wrong? Perhaps. But it takes two to Tango. The photog "Pro" could have let things go. But he continued to "stand his ground" (Wow...give the guy a Medal)...."waaaa....I have the right to photograph this. Waaaa...I am a school teacher...waaaa". Now it's in the papers.

And if he sues, guess who's footing the bill for that?

Nicksan,

No, I refuse to "cut them some slack". They expect to be treated differently to the rest of Society. So be it, but it works both ways, if they want my respect, then it has to be earned. And behaving like this is NOT why I'm helping pay their salarys.

Richard

[dekalbSTEEL]

I am sure the Police Office was in a happy go lucky mood after chasing a crazy dude in a SUV going 120 mph, as was stated in the article.

Just what he needed...some "Professional" photog and school teacher educated on his rights to refuse to listen to his requests.

I am not sure how I feel about this. While I agree that the officer in question went over the line, he did ask the photog to delete the photos, right or wrong. He was probably overreacting, sure, but he was just done with a 120mph chase and perhaps he has no patience dealing with some pain in the arse photog.

I would assume by watching the video and seeing his photos, that the trooper who "gave hin the business" was NOT one of the officers directly involved with the chase. I'm fairly certain it was another officer who responded to the scene after the fact. C'mon, the yellow tape was already up......

[EORI]

Those who join the police do so by choice. They are not being drafted for the post. If an individual can't handle being a police officer, then they can always look for a different line of work. It will save us taxpayers from having to pay for their ill-advised behavior.

I also don't understand how one can describe an individual's exercise of their Constitutional rights as "whining". If we start to give-in every time someone feels that the exercise of such rights is "frivolous", where do we draw the line? Must it rise to the level of a life-or-death situation before we start objecting to constraints on our individual rights? The founders of this country would be appalled to hear of that kind of talk.

[dispatchermike21]

Officer you can delete my LEGALLY optained photos from my camera after you pry it from my DEAD COLD FINGERS :evil::evil::evil:. If I have done nothing wrong the officer has NO RIGHT to threaten me with jail. I post this after speaking to my Brother the police officer with over ten years of service. I retired from the US Army I put my life on the line to protect the right of EVERYONE read that EVERYONE and it IS NOT Whinning when you let someone know your rights have or may have been abused.

Sorry for the rant but it burns me when someone wants to protect abuse as a right to power.

[nemopaice]

Glad I saw this. There was a thread the other day that was along the same lines. And this thread helps express a point I was trying to make. Police are not above the law nor do they have the power to take away our rights.

However, I hate confrontations sometimes, so I would just have deleted them and recovered them later.

[SlowBlink]

I've heard the same rhetoric all of my life, luckily I had people around me in law set me straight. Depending on where you live a police officers job is no more and sometimes less dangerous than many other fields of employment. The forest industry in my province claimed the lives of more people in the last year than policing has claimed in a decade.

Most police abuse at crime scenes is a result of adrenaline and getting there to late to use it for something physical. 99% of police work is mundane assembly line repetition and paperwork. Boredom and a huge jolt of adrenaline don't always make the most pleasant result but it's the officers responsibility to control his actions. This is covered in training along with the other psychological factors of the job.

I had a grandfather and Father who fought two world wars and came home with shell shock for those civil rights. I'll be dead before I let some grade 12 graduate high on adrenaline a coffee abuse them.

When police are good at their job, they're life savers. When they're abusing their position they're redundant and should be either reprimanded or fired. Just like any other profession. IMO that is.

[mattograph]

Every devil needs his advocate, so.....

I encourage everyone to remember that there are two sides to every story. While there is certainly no excuse for police officers to behave in the manner that they were described to have behaved, there is also nothing to corroborate the gentleman's story either.

A traditional "he said / she said" scenario.

Indeed, he even contradicts himself in the story (or at least appears to based on the way the story is edited.) He describes himself as having "locked his camera in his scooter". Yet when he gets out of the police cruiser, not only is he no longer handcuffed, but has the camera right there in his hands.

He could be telling the god's honest truth, or he could be full of crap. Not enough here to go on to decide, and certainly not enough to indict the law enforcement profession as a bunch of "grade 12 graduates high on adrenaline".

[nicksan]

In fact I think there's enough cases where you can actually make stereotypes for both cops and photogs.

Cops on power trips, and over-zealous photogs who feel it is within their right to shoot anything, anywhere, anytime, regardless of morality or taste. They'll just push the whole "I have the right to do so" card on you.


Every devil needs his advocate, so.....

I encourage everyone to remember that there are two sides to every story. While there is certainly no excuse for police officers to behave in the manner that they were described to have behaved, there is also nothing to corroborate the gentleman's story either.

A traditional "he said / she said" scenario.

Indeed, he even contradicts himself in the story (or at least appears to based on the way the story is edited.) He describes himself as having "locked his camera in his scooter". Yet when he gets out of the police cruiser, not only is he no longer handcuffed, but has the camera right there in his hands.

He could be telling the god's honest truth, or he could be full of crap. Not enough here to go on to decide, and certainly not enough to indict the law enforcement profession as a bunch of "grade 12 graduates high on adrenaline".

[SlowBlink]

I don't believe I indicted the entire profession, just the individual members who can't control their actions. I don't believe the time line in the video is meant to give an accurate representation of the events either. It certainly wasn't presented that way imo.

[mattograph]

I don't believe I indicted the entire profession, just the individual members who can't control their actions. I don't believe the time line in the video is meant to give an accurate representation of the events either. It certainly wasn't presented that way imo.

Oh, I agree. In fact, from my limited PJ experiences, the shot of him getting out of the cop car with the camera feels very staged, although TV journalists would never stage anything, would they?:oops:

Just kidding...... As a former public servant (firefighter / EMT) I have a soft spot for the mostly excellent job folks like our police do, and just hate to see anyone want to toss the baby out with the bath water -- and not suggesting that was your specific implication. The thread just had that "tone".

[SlowBlink]

Agreed, the tone was a little harsh. I'm the first to admit I couldn't do the job. I'd be hitting the bottle after the first kid mangled in a car wreck. I think the human resources inside the profession is probably as responsible as anything. Counselling and a proper de stressing method should be a requisite for the sake of the members mental health. Like i said the good ones are life savers, nothing short.

[thebishopp]

I am sure the Police Office was in a happy go lucky mood after chasing a crazy dude in a SUV going 120 mph, as was stated in the article.

Just what he needed...some "Professional" photog and school teacher educated on his rights to refuse to listen to his requests.

I am not sure how I feel about this. While I agree that the officer in question went over the line, he did ask the photog to delete the photos, right or wrong. He was probably overreacting, sure, but he was just done with a 120mph chase and perhaps he has no patience dealing with some pain in the arse photog.


No excuses in this matter (and I'm an ex-cop). Saw a lot of guys who could be described in this manner.

They get a gun and a badge and all of a sudden they think they are wyatt earp and everyone else is a cowboy. Or even worse, Judge Dred "I AM THE LAW!!!!".

They forget they are supposed to enforce the laws and not make them up.

I carry several copies of the "photographer's rights" just to be on the safe side. Won't help much if the officer has gone "****" but it would be helpful later in the civil suit.

[thebishopp]

Agreed, the tone was a little harsh. I'm the first to admit I couldn't do the job. I'd be hitting the bottle after the first kid mangled in a car wreck. I think the human resources inside the profession is probably as responsible as anything. Counselling and a proper de stressing method should be a requisite for the sake of the members mental health. Like i said the good ones are life savers, nothing short.

Counseling usually is. My first accident fatality (5 year old squished by a truck and I was the first on the scene) required a mandatory counseling session for every officer who was there.

[Killjoy]

I carry several copies of the "photographer's rights" just to be on the safe side. Won't help much if the officer has gone "****" but it would be helpful later in the civil suit.

For those of you who have not seen it, it's here (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm).
Or one version anyway.

[birdfromboat]

having worked as a firefighter, I will agree that adrenaline is always a factor, so is the fact that reporters and cameras are never a welcome addition to any uncontrolled situation. But a public servant can't let personal feelings circumvent the law, or enforce their own personal agenda. the policeman in question had better be able to justify his actions- maybe there was an undercover on site he was trying to protect, maybe the chase was part of an ongoing investigation- If he can't, he deserves to be sat down. Never underestimate the ability of enlightened citizens to uphold their own civil rights, this officer may be about to learn this lesson the hard way.

[CountryBoy]

He did say it was one of the State Troppers that lost his cool. I wonder the age of that trooper. Because i've noticed the younger ones have an attitude, while the older ones can handle things a lot smoother. As least around here anyway.

I'll keep an eye on this. But I would bet that it is swept under the rug, like usual

[Southswede]

What the cops should have done is taken both his scooter and camera as evidence................I know it would have taken me MONTHS to figure out where the film was. Then another 2-3 months just to figure out what that pesky little card was all about. But I WOULD have been able to determine his scooter had no value to the investigation and returned it.

Camera? He might have gotten it back within the next year, give or take.........

[fxk]

having worked as a firefighter, I will agree that adrenaline is always a factor, so is the fact that reporters and cameras are never a welcome addition to any uncontrolled situation. But a public servant can't let personal feelings circumvent the law, or enforce their own personal agenda. the policeman in question had better be able to justify his actions- maybe there was an undercover on site he was trying to protect, maybe the chase was part of an ongoing investigation- If he can't, he deserves to be sat down. Never underestimate the ability of enlightened citizens to uphold their own civil rights, this officer may be about to learn this lesson the hard way.

I know you are supporting rights. But plainly, there is no justification that will hold water. Justify their actions? To whom? Sounds like personal problems. There is a chaplain and a shrink on the force the guy can talk to.

The photographing of that scene is guaranteed by the constitution - freedom of speech, and right to a free press. Additionally, there is the question of the fourth amendment - illegal search and seizure.

I would like to know the charge - failure to follow a "lawful order" - BUZZ! Wrong answer. Interfering with a crime scene? BUZZ! Wrong answer. The cop could have instructed him to move back and post a new perimeter. The camera and/or film/media cannot be seized (or in this case - instructed to delete) without a warrant.

I wonder what false imprisonment and violation of constitutional rights is "worth". The story stated that other cops from different forces were also on scene - and either they did not know, or didn't want to dress the cop down in front of others - or maybe it was "Blue Line Syndrome". Any way you slice it, the cop in this case is in deep doo-doo. And the others, culpable.

[Southswede]

I know you are supporting rights. But plainly, there is no justification that will hold water. Justify their actions? To whom? Sounds like personal problems. There is a chaplain and a shrink on the force the guy can talk to.

The photographing of that scene is guaranteed by the constitution - freedom of speech, and right to a free press. Additionally, there is the question of the fourth amendment - illegal search and seizure.

I would like to know the charge - failure to follow a "lawful order" - BUZZ! Wrong answer. Interfering with a crime scene? BUZZ! Wrong answer. The cop could have instructed him to move back and post a new perimeter. The camera and/or film/media cannot be seized (or in this case - instructed to delete) without a warrant.

I wonder what false imprisonment and violation of constitutional rights is "worth". The story stated that other cops from different forces were also on scene - and either they did not know, or didn't want to dress the cop down in front of others - or maybe it was "Blue Line Syndrome". Any way you slice it, the cop in this case is in deep doo-doo. And the others, culpable.

You based this on that article alone, or do you have additional information?

Having over 20 years experience as a cop, I can tell you this: there are three sides to every story. His side, the cops side and some where in the middle, is the truth. You don't even have ALL of his side in this story......

[Miyagi-san]

Glad I went back to film now lol....delete? Sorry no can do!

[mattograph]

Glad I went back to film now lol....delete? Sorry no can do!


Uh, there is a solution for that too......

[Miyagi-san]

yeah but that would require a much 'firmer hand' from the cops = more fun for all :p

[mattograph]

yeah but that would require a much 'firmer hand' from the cops = more fun for all :p

True that.......

[dispatchermike21]

What the cops should have done is taken both his scooter and camera as evidence................I know it would have taken me MONTHS to figure out where the film was. Then another 2-3 months just to figure out what that pesky little card was all about. But I WOULD have been able to determine his scooter had no value to the investigation and returned it.

Camera? He might have gotten it back within the next year, give or take.........


evidence to what the POWER of the BADGE?

[thebishopp]

What the cops should have done is taken both his scooter and camera as evidence................I know it would have taken me MONTHS to figure out where the film was. Then another 2-3 months just to figure out what that pesky little card was all about. But I WOULD have been able to determine his scooter had no value to the investigation and returned it.

Camera? He might have gotten it back within the next year, give or take.........


That would have been PERFECT.

Media would of had a field day with that and it would have solidified a civil rights violation complaint against the department.

[thebishopp]

You based this on that article alone, or do you have additional information?

Having over 20 years experience as a cop, I can tell you this: there are three sides to every story. His side, the cops side and some where in the middle, is the truth. You don't even have ALL of his side in this story......


Granted I only had 5 years as a city cop (to your 20 but then again I come from a family of active and retired police officers) and yes there are usually more than one two or even three sides to a story.

However we are commenting solely on the info that was presented in the article. Opinions can be readjusted when new information becomes available.
Unless the officer didn't act that way, or that photographer was running around all over the crime scene there really isn't any justification for the threat (again unless he is lying and the officer didn't threaten to arrest him for taking pictures).

I CAN say however that I personally know cops that abuse the authority of their office... and have had cops tell me to put away the camera or that I could film or take pictures of them or they would arrest me.

Since I do happen to be an ex-cop (and now a licensed PI) I knew the proceedures to go through to have them corrected but not everyone knows these and can be easily bullied.

My method is to say OK (I don't delete anything) and request to speak to their sgt. or shift commander (usually a LT)... if that doesn't work then I get on the phone and call the station (or non-emergency dispatch if after hours) or if I have to, dial 911 (preferable because calls are usually recorded and a record of the call kept) calmly explain the situation and ask to speak to the shift commander.

Only had to do that once... the 2nd time my old partner was on the scene and he told them to back off (we then reminicsed about the old days and he tried to recruit me LOL).

A lesson from my days on the street (as well as a PI) is I always carry a tape recorder to document the situation. If you have a cell phone with video that is handy too but less "covert".

My philosophy is if someone wants to act like a perp than I will treat them like a perp.

Oh yeah, and I hate bullies.

[mattograph]

Confiscating a Nikon camera is a civil service, not a civil rights violation! :)

[Southswede]

evidence to what the POWER of the BADGE?

Well we wouldn't have known, until after the pictures were reviewed....

[Southswede]

That would have been PERFECT.

Media would of had a field day with that and it would have solidified a civil rights violation complaint against the department.

Yeah....right.....

[Southswede]

However we are commenting solely on the info that was presented in the article.

Oh yeah, and I hate bullies.

So you don't know what happened either (just like me!)

Oh yeah, I hate bullies too.

[thebishopp]

So you don't know what happened either (just like me!)

Oh yeah, I hate bullies too.

LOL, yes you got me there. I already admitted that.

But on a serious note...

Don't forget there have been a lot of officers charged with false arrest (kidnapping in some states).

Take the chicago case that was recently decided (final disposition of the case was just this past month or so). I believe it was to the tune of 7.7 million against the city (city lost).

Here is a link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-federal_jury_verdictjun13,0,4630555.story

You know as well as I do that an actual arrest is not always neccesary to constitute an "arrest". As long as a reasonble person believes that they are not allowed to leave, that can constitute an arrest.

You also know that the burden of proving probably cause for the arrest lies solely on the officer making it.

For example, if that officer had confiscated that camera as well as the scooter as "evidence" he would have to be able to show probably cause of a crime committed. In fact, you probably would have to actually arrest the photographer to justify the confiscation (remember you are confiscating the objects as "evidence"... evidence of what exactly if you don't hook and book the photog?). Heck, I am not even sure one could show "articuable suspicion".

You would pretty much be signing your own suspension papers unless you have a chief that's going to try and cover for you.

Say you have a chief that's willing to do that, in this day and age you better start praying that the incident doesn't get a lot of media coverage because if so, even with the cover up, you are going to get screwed.

The probably now (more so than before I think - or at least it's becoming more noticeable), is a lot of cops don't know the very laws they enforce.

We get what, once a year 40 hour mandatory recertification (most states- which doesn't really go over new laws). Departments rarely keep up with current supreme court rulings (hell I had to pay for my own law subscription).

While my initial instinct is to jump to the defense of the officer, I have seen too many knucklheads with a badge.

But again, you are right, we don't know all the facts.

[Southswede]

LOL, yes you got me there. I already admitted that.

But on a serious note...

Don't forget there have been a lot of officers charged with false arrest (kidnapping in some states).

Take the chicago case that was recently decided (final disposition of the case was just this past month or so). I believe it was to the tune of 7.7 million against the city (city lost).

Here is a link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-federal_jury_verdictjun13,0,4630555.story

You know as well as I do that an actual arrest is not always neccesary to constitute an "arrest". As long as a reasonble person believes that they are not allowed to leave, that can constitute an arrest.

You also know that the burden of proving probably cause for the arrest lies solely on the officer making it.

For example, if that officer had confiscated that camera as well as the scooter as "evidence" he would have to be able to show probably cause of a crime committed. In fact, you probably would have to actually arrest the photographer to justify the confiscation (remember you are confiscating the objects as "evidence"... evidence of what exactly if you don't hook and book the photog?). Heck, I am not even sure one could show "articuable suspicion".

You would pretty much be signing your own suspension papers unless you have a chief that's going to try and cover for you.

Say you have a chief that's willing to do that, in this day and age you better start praying that the incident doesn't get a lot of media coverage because if so, even with the cover up, you are going to get screwed.

The probably now (more so than before I think - or at least it's becoming more noticeable), is a lot of cops don't know the very laws they enforce.

We get what, once a year 40 hour mandatory recertification (most states- which doesn't really go over new laws). Departments rarely keep up with current supreme court rulings (hell I had to pay for my own law subscription).

While my initial instinct is to jump to the defense of the officer, I have seen too many knucklheads with a badge.

But again, you are right, we don't know all the facts.

You will have to define "a lot" of false arrests for me. I guess I'm just a little slow. Of the tens of thousands of arrests annually, how many are "false arrests"?

[DigitalSpecialist]

Sad so SAD

[cory1848]

You will have to define "a lot" of false arrests for me. I guess I'm just a little slow. Of the tens of thousands of arrests annually, how many are "false arrests"?

A lot to me is more than 1. I have been told by numerous cops that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So that better apply to the arresting officers as well.

[Southswede]

A lot to me is more than 1. I have been told by numerous cops that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So that better apply to the arresting officers as well.

Why yes, it sure does.......sigh.......

[thebishopp]

You will have to define "a lot" of false arrests for me. I guess I'm just a little slow. Of the tens of thousands of arrests annually, how many are "false arrests"?


Hmmm major lawsuits aside (Chicago, NewYork, Detoit)... how about:

As of 2001:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E1D71631F932A25757C0A9679C8B 63

"federal statistics made available recently showing that since 1996, Detroit has arrested far more people in homicide cases than any other big-city police department, reporting an average of nearly three arrests per killing. Most cities average roughly one arrest per homicide case."

These guys were arresting witnesses by the boatload! LOL. How long did they get away with it before somebody finally listened?

It would be insane to think this only happens in Detroit and recent lawsuits support this (that's not to say that every lawsuit is a valid one).

I'm sure in your 20 years of being a cop you saw some "questionable" activity.

Hell in my 5 I know I did.

From the "magic typewriter" (you should definately know that one) to a fellow officer running drugs from New Orleans. Small town and all not a damn thing anyone could do about it, hell a recent DEA drug bust nailed the former mayor's son in law and the family member of a local afluent family (friends of the Chief - who has now been elected Sherrif) as well as the local county attorney in a cocaine supply ring. They got away with it for YEARS and we were under instructions not to "bother" them. Thank god for that anonymous tip to the DEA.

Funny though how the DEA refused to work with us as they felt we had some "leaks" in the department.

[BillMarks]

Perfectly within his rights if he was on public ground and the Police have no rights at all to make him delete the images, unless they get approval from the high court or something. I think that Officer is going to be in hot water today.

Yes--he was perfectly within his rights. And yet, when the police tell you to do something at a crime or accident scene, you need to do it or face criminal charges. Yuo can try to sue them later, but if you don't obey at the time, you can get arrested.

[Southswede]

[QUOTE=thebishopp;5868487]Hmmm major lawsuits aside (Chicago, NewYork, Detoit)... how about:

As of 2001:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E1D71631F932A25757C0A9679C8B 63

"federal statistics made available recently showing that since 1996, Detroit has arrested far more people in homicide cases than any other big-city police department, reporting an average of nearly three arrests per killing. Most cities average roughly one arrest per homicide case."

These guys were arresting witnesses by the boatload! LOL. How long did they get away with it before somebody finally listened?


QUOTE]

I won't bother trying to explaine it to you...you wouldn't understand.

[thebishopp]

[quote=thebishopp;5868487]Hmmm major lawsuits aside (Chicago, NewYork, Detoit)... how about:

As of 2001:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E1D71631F932A25757C0A9679C8B 63

"federal statistics made available recently showing that since 1996, Detroit has arrested far more people in homicide cases than any other big-city police department, reporting an average of nearly three arrests per killing. Most cities average roughly one arrest per homicide case."

These guys were arresting witnesses by the boatload! LOL. How long did they get away with it before somebody finally listened?


QUOTE]

I won't bother trying to explaine it to you...you wouldn't understand.


No... I probably wouldn't. I don't believe in excuses for incompetence. Nor do I believe in excuses for a lack of INTEGRITY.

Oh yeah, I was in New Orleans after Katrina when those two NO cops beat the crap out of that older school teacher. Remember that one? Even the statte police told us to watch out for them as most of them were corrupt. One of the places we were contracted to protect had most of their caddilacs SUVS stolen by NOPD (their wives and family members in other states were caught driving them after they were reported stolen). While there were looters we were told to wach out for NOPD especially.

Had a couple run ins with them when they they tried to check out one of our areas and we had to escort them from the property with the help of the NG unit stationed at the corner (as soon as they saw NOPD roll in they dispatched a squad to assist... of couse we were all heavily armed).

Those guys were out of control, not to mention the confiscating of weapons from law abiding citizens (hope you didn't miss the video of that old lady getting tackled in her own home when she was asked if she had any weapons).

[SlowBlink]

First of all he wasn't at a crime scene, he was on his property. The crime didn't occur on his property so in no way would it be seen as such. That`s one of the benefits private property includes, the freedom to move about doing anything you want as long as it`s legal.

I think for sake of argument we can take the OP for his word unless you have an inherent mistrust of school teachers. I`ve never heard of gangs of 6th grade teachers spraying the streets with teflon coated ammunition flashing gang signs.

Southswede: How about you do explain rather than patronize. I`m sure you`ll find many people in the thread with more than enough life experience and post secondary education to grasp it.

[EORI]

What the cops should have done is taken both his scooter and camera as evidence................I know it would have taken me MONTHS to figure out where the film was. Then another 2-3 months just to figure out what that pesky little card was all about. But I WOULD have been able to determine his scooter had no value to the investigation and returned it.

Camera? He might have gotten it back within the next year, give or take.........

Your statement validates everything that others have been saying about the need for the rest of us to be vigilant against dirty cops who have no qualms about violating the Constitution.

[Southswede]

Your statement validates everything that others have been saying about the need for the rest of us to be vigilant against dirty cops who have no qualms about violating the Constitution.

Now what Constitutional rights were violated? By who/whom, when and where?

[thebishopp]

Your statement validates everything that others have been saying about the need for the rest of us to be vigilant against dirty cops who have no qualms about violating the Constitution.

You are right. With that one statement he merely identified himself as being one of the corrupt or at least supporting of them (the same as far as I'm concerned).

I was hoping that it was made "tongue in cheek" but if not then hopefully he is retired and not out on the streets practicing his Judge Dred impersonation.

[Southswede]

First of all he wasn't at a crime scene, he was on his property. The crime didn't occur on his property so in no way would it be seen as such. That`s one of the benefits private property includes, the freedom to move about doing anything you want as long as it`s legal.

I think for sake of argument we can take the OP for his word unless you have an inherent mistrust of school teachers. I`ve never heard of gangs of 6th grade teachers spraying the streets with teflon coated ammunition flashing gang signs.

Southswede: How about you do explain rather than patronize. I`m sure you`ll find many people in the thread with more than enough life experience and post secondary education to grasp it.

"Teflon coated ammunition"? LOL! No, I'm afraid I won't. At least not in your case.....

But for the sake of argument, you seem to have an "inherent mistrust" of LEO's.

[Southswede]

[quote=Southswede;5868730]


No... I probably wouldn't. I don't believe in excuses for incompetence. Nor do I believe in excuses for a lack of INTEGRITY.

Oh yeah, I was in New Orleans after Katrina when those two NO cops beat the crap out of that older school teacher. Remember that one?

No, all I saw was a 15 second sound-bite, that was shown. Maybe you can tell all of us r FIRST-HAND account of what you SAW.....

[Patriotic1]

A lesson from my days on the street (as well as a PI) is I always carry a tape recorder to document the situation. If you have a cell phone with video that is handy too but less "covert".
Anyone considering this should probably check their state laws first. Even if you are party to the conversation some states require consent from all parties involved to legally tape the conversation. No sense making matters worse for yourself if you can avoid it.

[Southswede]

Anyone considering this should probably check their state laws first. Even if you are party to the conversation some states require consent from all parties involved to legally tape the conversation. No sense making matters worse for yourself if you can avoid it.

But "we" have rights!!! ;)

[thebishopp]

[quote=thebishopp;5868787]

No, all I saw was a 15 second sound-bite, that was shown. Maybe you can tell all of us r FIRST-HAND account of what you SAW.....


LOL... no I didn't see it first hand.

But those boys that rolled into our area mentioned they could see to it we were beat like that "boy" if we didn't "mind" them. At the time I didn't know what happened and asked what exactly they were referring to. They never answered and then I heard about it a few days later.

Didn't much faze us.... not bravado on our part, just that we had them outnumbered and outgunned, as well as the assistance of the state police if we needed them.

You see people yelling and cussing at me doesn't rile me up. As long as they left nicely I didn't have a problem.

And leave they did... in fact they never came back despite their threats to the contrary.

Again, I don't make excuses for incompetence... and especially not for a lack of integrity/honor. People who do usually lack the later two and are usually the former.

Arguing with such people is pointless.

I notice that rather then comment on the point of his statement and focused on his lack of knowledge concerning weaponry.

You should instead of addressed his issue and maybe informed him of his error regarding the "teflon coated ammunition".

Nothing in his post strikes me as mistrustful of law enforcement. If anything my posts do. Ironic since I am actualy pretty trusting of LEOs, especially the one's I still count as my friends, however I am not blind to the bad apples out there (and I believe there are quite a few).

It is sad that we put up the blue wall and protect them when we should have been cleaning house.

[SlowBlink]

"Teflon coated ammunition"? LOL! No, I'm afraid I won't. At least not in your case.....That's refreshing, is that supposed to be intimidating?
But for the sake of argument, you seem to have an "inherent mistrust" of LEO's.
Not at all. I`d consider myself as someone who grew up in a political family with two retired attorneys, an appeals court judge and two cousins who were RCMP.
My Father was Vice President of the PSAC in 1967, the union federal police and security services/prison guards belong to. I grew up hearing first hand the bad and the good. But then we're not discussing all police here, just the one who left a crime scene and entered private property to intimidate a citizen.

How about instead of slinging ridicule you offer a valid opinion. I may be missing something about this particular scenario and would gladly be corrected if you're offering.

And an answer other than "I would but you wouldn't understand" would be helpful.
edit|: Paul Kopsch (an Ohio coroner), Daniel Turcos (a police sergeant), and Donald Ward (Kopsch's special investigator), began experimenting with special purpose handgun ammunition. Their objective was to develop a law enforcement round capable of improved penetration against hard targets, such as windshield glass and automobile doors. After some experimentation with steel rounds, the officers settled on a brass core with a lubricating jacket of Teflon. These bullets wore-out barrels far more quickly than normal jacketed rounds, as unlike lead the immalleable brass did not deform to fit the rifling. For this reason, the bullets were then coated with a layer of Teflon to reduce barrel wear.

[thebishopp]

And an answer other than "I would but you wouldn't understand" would be helpful.
edit|: Paul Kopsch (an Ohio coroner), Daniel Turcos (a police sergeant), and Donald Ward (Kopsch's special investigator), began experimenting with special purpose handgun ammunition. Their objective was to develop a law enforcement round capable of improved penetration against hard targets, such as windshield glass and automobile doors. After some experimentation with steel rounds, the officers settled on a brass core with a lubricating jacket of Teflon. These bullets wore-out barrels far more quickly than normal jacketed rounds, as unlike lead the immalleable brass did not deform to fit the rifling. For this reason, the bullets were then coated with a layer of Teflon to reduce barrel wear.

I must apologize for assuming your lack of knowledge of weaponry.

I had assumed you were referring to what the general public believed were Armor Piercing... much of it media fuled with had nothing to do with a bullets ability to defeat common bulet proofing materials. Much like all that hoopla regarding the black "talon" bullets.

I did not realize you were aware of the testing conducted using teflon as well as other materials (I believe Moly Difuside something or other lol - used as dry lube) is also used in this regard.

I digress from the point but I believe winchester and federal now have a special "bonded" bullet where the jacket and the core are actually "bonded" -chemically I believe- so there is less seperation upon impact thus allowing deeper penetration.

Getting back on topic:

Hopefully there is an update of some sort... I checked out the site but no such luck. A lot of times, unless it is pushed, things like this get swept under the rug. Either he will drop the complaint or the city will offer some type of pay off.

[fubarhouse]

Note to anybody who wants a laugh, undelete wizards or card recovery wizards.
Your camera never changes all the data back to 0000 its always 1011 (binary).
Your camera only deletes the Table of Contents, or the index if you will.
No matter what police do, you can't physically delete it on the spot. ;)

[Shutterbug Doug]

Note to anybody who wants a laugh, undelete wizards or card recovery wizards.
Your camera never changes all the data back to 0000 its always 1011 (binary).
Your camera only deletes the Table of Contents, or the index if you will.
No matter what police do, you can't physically delete it on the spot. ;)
Will in camera formatting delete the shots and make them unrecoverable?

[EORI]

Will in camera formatting delete the shots and make them unrecoverable?

Doug, my very recent experience using the Sandisk data recovery tool on a well-used, and frequently formatted memory card tells me that the shots will still be recoverable after it has been formatted. The only proviso here is that if you take new images on the card before you have recovered the old images, the new images will overwrite the old, making the old images irretrievable (at least using this recovery tool).

[DocFrankenstein]

I agree that cops needs to excercise emotional indifference but at the same time I think we would all agree that a lot of photog feel entitled or the right to be anywhere, anytime
Maybe because the law is clear on that they CAN, huh?

Photogs are strange people, who are aware of their rights and want to exercise them. :rolleyes:

[fxk]

You based this on that article alone, or do you have additional information?

Having over 20 years experience as a cop, I can tell you this: there are three sides to every story. His side, the cops side and some where in the middle, is the truth. You don't even have ALL of his side in this story......

Of course, you are right as to the "real" situation, and the fallibility of witnesses My comments, as you correctly pointed out, were strictly based on facts as presented. I'm sure a "unbiased" investigation will find certain failures in the timeline, and what was said. The truth, indeed, is somewhere in the middle. Of course, is any investigation truly unbiased?

We, as a society, regularly substitute our own beliefs for fact, (much as I'm doing now...) and unlike the scientific method that describes making a hypothesis and trying to disprove it, we make the same hypothesis and try to prove it, ignoring facts that conflict with our desired outcome. Junk science. Junk investigations.

Ever wonder why the JFK investigation documents were sealed for an additional 25 years?

[Southswede]

You are right. With that one statement he merely identified himself as being one of the corrupt or at least supporting of them (the same as far as I'm concerned).

I was hoping that it was made "tongue in cheek" but if not then hopefully he is retired and not out on the streets practicing his Judge Dred impersonation.

ROFLMAO!!! I just love post like this, along with threads like this one!! It really doesn't seem to matter what message board topics like this come up on. The posters are all the same. They comment on a small part of a total situation, thinking they know all that happened. When it is pointed out that we know next to nothing, based on the source (the short, biased article in this case) they make comments like yours.

The anonymity of the internet is fun to watch! People with an agenda are exposed rather quickly. In spite of all the hand wringing, declaration of violated rights, false bravado about what they would have done, in the end they are the same: the call the cops with their problems, or follow what they are asked to do an any particular scene.....

But these threads are a lot of fun. I never take then serious, because they are not to be taken serious.

[zacker]

why wouldnt they want a photog around?? were they planning on doing some Illeagle stuff? wallet extractions? beatings? I dont understand... they wanted him to delete the pics?? makes no sense at all...

[Shutterbug Doug]

Doug, my very recent experience using the Sandisk data recovery tool on a well-used, and frequently formatted memory card tells me that the shots will still be recoverable after it has been formatted. The only proviso here is that if you take new images on the card before you have recovered the old images, the new images will overwrite the old, making the old images irretrievable (at least using this recovery tool).
Thanks Eori, that's good to know. I knew if you hit "delete" they could be retrieved and I was aware that shooting on a card would overwrite the previous information from other posts here but also wonder if it just affects some(at the beginning or end?) or all.
I was thinking about trying this out just as a test case and see what happenes. Since I'm recently unemployed and have TONS of free time I might give it a go and see what results come from it concerning all scenarios.
BTW, loving the 24mm!;)

[EORI]

I knew if you hit "delete" they could be retrieved and I was aware that shooting on a card would overwrite the previous information from other posts here but also wonder if it just affects some(at the beginning or end?) or all.

From what I could tell from images that I retrieved, the newer images appear to overwrite the older images at the beginning of the card.

Glad you're enjoying the 24mm. :)

[Southswede]

why wouldnt they want a photog around?? were they planning on doing some Illeagle stuff? wallet extractions? beatings? I dont understand... they wanted him to delete the pics?? makes no sense at all...

I don't know. I wasn't there, so I have no way of knowing what the scene was like or anything else. I can, like everyone else, only GUESS.

Here is what I have learned with over 20 years experience: 10% of society cause 90% of societies problems. People simply assume we are all the same. We are not. The 90% are decent, hard working up-standing people. They should NEVER think the 10% are just like them-they are not.

I got back into photography, because I started seeing society, as a whole, like the 10%. I needed to get a broader scope of the bigger picture. Photorgaphers like us, are the 90%. This has restored my faith in people as a whole.

What you have to remember, is that the LEO's have a job to do. Let them do it. If they ask you not to take pictures, don't. I isn't that hard of a concept...is it?

[Shutterbug Doug]

I don't know. I wasn't there, so I have no way of knowing what the scene was like or anything else. I can, like everyone else, only GUESS.

Here is what I have learned with over 20 years experience: 10% of society cause 90% of societies problems. People simply assume we are all the same. We are not. The 90% are decent, hard working up-standing people. They should NEVER think the 10% are just like them-they are not.

I got back into photography, because I started seeing society, as a whole, like the 10%. I needed to get a broader scope of the bigger picture. Photorgaphers like us, are the 90%. This has restored my faith in people as a whole.

What you have to remember, is that the LEO's have a job to do. Let them do it. If they ask you not to take pictures, don't. I isn't that hard of a concept...is it?
So what you're basically saying is never question authority and blindly conform? Nope, not my style, especially if I know I'm within my rights.

[Southswede]

So what you're basically saying is never question authority and blindly conform? Nope, not my style, especially if I know I'm within my rights.

Well alrighty then........

[EORI]

Here is what I have learned with over 20 years experience: 10% of society cause 90% of societies problems. People simply assume we are all the same. We are not. The 90% are decent, hard working up-standing people. They should NEVER think the 10% are just like them-they are not.

What makes police officers the exception to your observations about society in general? Should we assume that all of them are right 100% of the time?

No one is going to argue with you that the job performed by the majority of police officers are not valued and appreciated. There's no reason for you to defend the scofflaws among your ranks who pretend to be upholding the law.

[polarbare]

What you have to remember, is that the LEO's have a job to do. Let them do it. Let them do it. If they ask you not to take pictures, don't. I isn't that hard of a concept...is it?
Doug is spot on. Just blindly question authority? Nope. I love living in a democracy and not a fascist state and I want to keep it that way.

I was a firefighter/paramedic for years before switching careers. I know hundreds of LEOs and the thing I learned most about them is.......

wait for it.....


they're HUMAN!! and therefore prone to mistakes, errors in judgment, fallibility, etc..
LEOs DO have a hard job but so do lots of people. They also have a dangerous job but so do lots of people. Part of the responsibility of becoming a LEO is knowing when and where your authority ends.

[nicksan]

The law doesn't account for taste or morality does it?
Sure, because they CAN but that doesn't necessarily mean it's in good taste or morally right.

If my kid was in some kind of nasty accident, I wouldn't want some photog shooting pics of the bloody mess. I am sure most would agree with that.

But there are always snapping away...sure..because they CAN.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Maybe because the law is clear on that they CAN, huh?

Photogs are strange people, who are aware of their rights and want to exercise them. :rolleyes:

[nicksan]

Democracy? What democracy? Now that's funny...:lol:

Yeah they are human. But getting into trouble because the LEO dealt with a photog completely unrelated to the case at hand must be frustrating.

Again, frankly, I would rather them dedicate 100% of their time to the case at hand, and not have to worry about how to treat photographer and his/her "rights".




Doug is spot on. Just blindly question authority? Nope. I love living in a democracy and not a fascist state and I want to keep it that way.

I was a firefighter/paramedic for years before switching careers. I know hundreds of LEOs and the thing I learned most about them is.......

wait for it.....


they're HUMAN!! and therefore prone to mistakes, errors in judgment, fallibility, etc..
LEOs DO have a hard job but so do lots of people. They also have a dangerous job but so do lots of people. Part of the responsibility of becoming a LEO is knowing when and where your authority ends.

[Southswede]

What makes police officers the exception to your observations about society in general? Should we assume that all of them are right 100% of the time?

No one is going to argue with you that the job performed by the majority of police officers are not valued and appreciated. There's no reason for you to defend the scofflaws among your ranks who pretend to be upholding the law.

Police are not the exception to my observation. Where did I say that? I have no problem with the trust, but verify way of thinking. PLease show me where I have EVER defended the "scofflaws" among my ranks! (You cannot, because I have NEVER done so.)

I'll sat it again, we don't have enough information to determine what happened on the OP's scene.

[Southswede]

What makes police officers the exception to your observations about society in general? Should we assume that all of them are right 100% of the time?

No one is going to argue with you that the job performed by the majority of police officers are not valued and appreciated. There's no reason for you to defend the scofflaws among your ranks who pretend to be upholding the law.

By the way, are you going to answer my earlier post question? You know, what Constitustional rights were violated and by who/whom?

[CountryBoy]

So what you're basically saying is never question authority and blindly conform? Nope, not my style, especially if I know I'm within my rights.

Never been my style either. But as i've gotten older, i pick my battle's a little better. I ask myself,is it really worth it ? In this case, I might of backed off a little more and kept shooting, or pulled out my p&s and started taping it :D
But I might have just left and filed a complaint later.

We really don't know what was first said , either, Maybe the trooper was an ass to begin with. But maybe, he just ask the guy to stop shooting, and then the photographer started shouting " It's my right's". Maybe he yanked out a copy of the "Photographer's Rights " and told the trooper to read it :D Either way , I think both handled it the wrong way.

But it's nice to know you can recover images you delete, if the need be.

[Southswede]

Doug is spot on. Just blindly question authority? Nope. I love living in a democracy and not a fascist state and I want to keep it that way.

.

But you don't live in a democracy. You live in a Representative Republic, or didn't you know that?

[Southswede]

Democracy? What democracy? Now that's funny...:lol:

Yeah they are human. But getting into trouble because the LEO dealt with a photog completely unrelated to the case at hand must be frustrating.

Again, frankly, I would rather them dedicate 100% of their time to the case at hand, and not have to worry about how to treat photographer and his/her "rights".

HOW DARE YOU interject common sense!! ;)

[Southswede]

Never been my style either. But as i've gotten older, i pick my battle's a little better. I ask myself,is it really worth it ? In this case, I might of backed off a little more and kept shooting, or pulled out my p&s and started taping it :D
But I might have just left and filed a complaint later.

We really don't know what was first said , either, Maybe the trooper was an ass to begin with. But maybe, he just ask the guy to stop shooting, and then the photographer started shouting " It's my right's". Maybe he yank out a copy of the "Photographer's Rights " and told the trooper to read it :D Either way , I think both handled it the wrong way.

But it's nice to know you can recover images you delete, if the need be.

Hey! More common sense!!!

[mattograph]

But you don't live in a democracy. You live in a Representative Republic, or didn't you know that?

Technically, I believe its a Federal Republic.

[cory1848]

Doug is spot on. Just blindly question authority? Nope. I love living in a democracy and not a fascist state and I want to keep it that way.

I was a firefighter/paramedic for years before switching careers. I know hundreds of LEOs and the thing I learned most about them is.......

wait for it.....


they're HUMAN!! and therefore prone to mistakes, errors in judgment, fallibility, etc..
LEOs DO have a hard job but so do lots of people. They also have a dangerous job but so do lots of people. Part of the responsibility of becoming a LEO is knowing when and where your authority ends.

Police are held to a higher standard. Yes they are human and mistakes happen, but getting arrested, thrown in jail, having to fight a court case and possibly having a record all because some overzealous cop was on a power trip can wreck someones life, emotionally and financially. LEO's need to know the laws they enforce and if they choose to enforce one, they better be 100% certain about it.

[Southswede]

Police are held to a higher standard. Yes they are human and mistakes happen, but getting arrested, thrown in jail, having to fight a court case and possibly having a record all because some overzealous cop was on a power trip can wreck someones life, emotionally and financially. LEO's need to know the laws they enforce and if they choose to enforce one, they better be 100% certain about it.

What makes you think we don't know the laws we enforce?

[Southswede]

Technically, I believe its a Federal Republic.

http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm

[Shutterbug Doug]

Amazing how your reasoning of "common sense" goes hand in hand with blind conformity.
Hey, I might have backed off as well but that doesn't make the troopers actions correct do they? The arrested togs civil rights, as the story goes, were violated would you not agree?

[CountryBoy]

I ran across this interesting web site,
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/07/07/oklahoma-state-troopers-force-photographer-to-delete-images/

This is a quote " One thing…I did not unlock scooter…I was hand cuffed, locked in police car, and told to shut-up while the police unlocked my scooter (illegal) and took my camera out (illegal) and started passing camera around pushing butons and deleting photos. The deletions were random because they got some of the crime and some of the paid shoot photos I had just finished before the accident."

[mattograph]

http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm



That was interesting.

My understanding has always been that a Federal Republic features a central leader elected by a number of established, sovereign states (electoral college). A representative republic is similar, yet the bodies of people represented need not be, and are most likely not, organized by the sovereignty.

So, we could say the US is organized as Federal Republic, and our states and localities are organized as a representative republic.

How's that for having it both ways!

[Southswede]

Amazing how your reasoning of "common sense" goes hand in hand with blind conformity.
Hey, I might have backed off as well but that doesn't make the troopers actions correct do they? The arrested togs civil rights, as the story goes, were violated would you not agree?

Where/when have I said anything about "blind conformity"?

[Southswede]

That was interesting.

My understanding has always been that a Federal Republic features a central leader elected by a number of established, sovereign states (electoral college). A representative republic is similar, yet the bodies of people represented need not be, and are most likely not, organized by the sovereignty.

So, we could say the US is organized as Federal Republic, and our states and localities are organized as a representative republic.

How's that for having it both ways!



LOL! I never looked at it that way! And like most things, it becomes ahem clear! :)

[TheSonofDarwin]

What makes you think we don't know the laws we enforce?

I think people would rather assume ignorance of certain laws rather than a blatant disregard for them.

Again, frankly, I would rather them dedicate 100% of their time to the case at hand, and not have to worry about how to treat photographer and his/her "rights".

True. Then again, they are intentionally worrying about the photography and his/her "rights" rather than going about their business in the case at hand.

Find law breakers, don't make them.

[BillMarks]

First of all he wasn't at a crime scene, he was on his property. The crime didn't occur on his property so in no way would it be seen as such. That`s one of the benefits private property includes, the freedom to move about doing anything you want as long as it`s legal.

I think for sake of argument we can take the OP for his word unless you have an inherent mistrust of school teachers. I`ve never heard of gangs of 6th grade teachers spraying the streets with teflon coated ammunition flashing gang signs.

Southswede: How about you do explain rather than patronize. I`m sure you`ll find many people in the thread with more than enough life experience and post secondary education to grasp it.

I'm not sure what is so difficult about this concept...

When a crime or accident has occurred, THE POLICE are in charge. Period. This is an important part of civil protection. When floods threated neighborhoods, people can be forcefully, and legally removed from their private property by the police.

THE POLICE determine the limits of the crime or accident scene. Crime/accident scenes are little, legal, totalitarian regimes run by THE POLICE. It is through their total power that THE POLICE help ensure that the bad guy doesn't get away and/or the accident victim doesn't die. They can't be tied up with every person looking to take a constitutional stand.

[Shutterbug Doug]

Where/when have I said anything about "blind conformity"?
From your obvious back slapping those that say they would walk away when asked by the cops to do so.
I guess it kinda pisses you LEO's off when the genpop shows that they will stand up for their rights and not be bullied by some guy with a gun and a badge. All that weaponry and authority overrun by a silly civil liberty. I guess it sucks getting knocked back down to the "human" level, huh?

[Shutterbug Doug]

I'm not sure what is so difficult about this concept...

When a crime or accident has occurred, THE POLICE are in charge. Period. This is an important part of civil protection. When floods threated neighborhoods, people can be forcefully, and legally removed from their private property by the police.

THE POLICE determine the limits of the crime or accident scene. Crime/accident scenes are little, legal, totalitarian regimes run by THE POLICE. It is through their total power that THE POLICE help ensure that the bad guy doesn't get away and/or the accident victim doesn't die. They can't be tied up with every person looking to take a constitutional stand.
If you don't cross the tape your not in violation of anything so where should their concern be? Inside the tape with a victim or perp or outside the scene with a civilian within his legal rights?

[Southswede]

From your obvious back slapping those that say they would walk away when asked by the cops to do so.
I guess it kinda pisses you LEO's off when the genpop shows that they will stand up for their rights and not be bullied by some guy with a gun and a badge. All that weaponry and authority overrun by a silly civil liberty. I guess it sucks getting knocked back down to the "human" level, huh?

ROLFMAO!

[polarbare]

If you want to be more accurate I'll take republic instead of democracy although both terms are correct here in the US. :)

Don't get me wrong, I love LEOs. There were several places in town I wouldn't have gone in without one when I was still working EMS. However, when I'm asked to stop taking photographs of something that I have every right to photograph I'm not just going to say "yes sir" and move on. LEOs need to know the limits of their power and when they're going to cross into the realm of violating constitutional rights. As I was once told by an officer; "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" -- that applies to LEOs as well.

If you're taking photos of a crime scene and you're on public land (or your own, or your neighbors...), not endangering or interfering, and outside the incident circle then the officers on scene need to get back to business and leave you alone - it isn't a hard concept to grasp or follow.

edited to add:
I would like to take a moment to say that almost all LEOs I've spoken with over these types of issues realized and respected my rights after a brief and polite discussion. Now security guards and similar (like MBTA officers here in MA) are another matter.

[mattograph]

LEO + Perp + Genpop=Too Much "Law and Order" :)

[Southswede]

If you don't cross the tape your not in violation of anything so where should their concern be? Inside the tape with a victim or perp or outside the scene with a civilian within his legal rights?

Both. Whether you are on this side, or that side of a line (or tape) you are still on the scene. They need to watch everyone. You being there takes attention from where is should, or needs to be and places it on "you".

[Shutterbug Doug]

LEO + Perp + Genpop=Too Much "Law and Order" :)
Watched the show once and it did nothing for me....lol
NCIS is a different story!

[mattograph]

Watched the show once and it did nothing for me....lol
NCIS is a different story!

*smacks head*

What was that for, boss?

[EORI]

By the way, are you going to answer my earlier post question? You know, what Constitustional rights were violated and by who/whom?

You're a cop, so you presumably know what the Bill of Rights are, or am I being generous?

Let's start with Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure.
First Amendment freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.
Common law false arrest.

As for the whom, I was responding to your first person post of what you would do in your capacity as a cop, or did you forget that too?

[Shutterbug Doug]

Both. Whether you are on this side, or that side of a line (or tape) you are still on the scene. They need to watch everyone. You being there takes attention from where is should, or needs to be and places it on "you".
Sounds to me like they need to set up a wider area then if this is the case. Is it an accident scene or a golf course? Just chase everyone off the entire block or 1/4 mile radius!
Look, if I'm outside the lines my legal activities shouldn't distract them from their obligations or duties. Do your job and I'll do mine and it'll all work out fine.
I'm certain when working a scene there are enough officers in attendance to assign one or two to line duty. This should allow the others on scene to work as required without distractions, correct? Officer Joe on line duty while Officers Bob, Mike and Brenda work the scene? Is this not how it (should) work?

[EORI]

Police are not the exception to my observation. Where did I say that? I have no problem with the trust, but verify way of thinking. PLease show me where I have EVER defended the "scofflaws" among my ranks! (You cannot, because I have NEVER done so.)

Re-read all of your statements in this thread. It's all about how citizens need to blindly obey what a police officer says. Implicit in your statements is the presumption that a police officer is always right. Your original statement to which I was responding described first hand what a scofflaw officer would do. By defending your position, you have defended the scofflaw.

[Shutterbug Doug]

*smacks head*

What was that for, boss?
LOL, I love Mark Harmon, he makes that show so entertaining. Law and Order was/is just too stiff for my enjoyment.

[mattograph]

LOL, I love Mark Harmon, he makes that show so entertaining. Law and Order was/is just too stiff for my enjoyment.

A classic celebrity deathmatch that wasn't:

Sam Waterston vs. Mark Harmon

[Shutterbug Doug]

I had to Google Sam Waterston.....therein lies my lack of interest and knowledge of that show. LOL

[polarbare]

Sam Waterston, from Old glory Insurance.. The only life insurance company to provide full coverage against the leading killer of the elderly: robot attacks. (http://www.robotmarketplace.com/video_oldglory_hi.html)

[mattograph]

Is it safe to declare this thread officially hijacked?

And if so, is someone gonna call the cops?

"Hey officer, I hear doug has pictures of your wife nude on his camera. You might wanna confiscate it!"

[SlowBlink]

Doesn't seem like SS is up to answering the questions put to him, only ridiculing or patronizing members. It's a shame since by the sounds of it he has a wealth of legal knowledge, but is unwilling to share it.

Adrenaline junkies or bullies join the force and end up being the topics of threads like this. It's human nature and you'll find those personalities in every occupation. Unfortunately you also find an us versus them attitude which seems to be present in this thread as well.

Police aren't trained in law they're trained in investigation and enforcement. Six months of Police training doesn't give you a law degree. The idea that if you're in the line of sight of an LEO makes you under his care is absurd.

If we're going to apply the same rigid rules of disclosure in every thread we wouldn't be able to answer any questions because we wouldn't have enough information. We take the OP at face value and go from there.

Given the same situation I'd do what I've been told by the Lawyers in the family. Exercise your right to silence and ask for access to an attorney who will advise you on how to proceed.

[Southswede]

You're a cop, so you presumably know what the Bill of Rights are, or am I being generous?

Let's start with Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure.
First Amendment freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.
Common law false arrest.

As for the whom, I was responding to your first person post of what you would do in your capacity as a cop, or did you forget that too?

Just because YOU say something in unreasonable, does not make it so. We do not have enough information to determine if the LEO's violated anyone Civil Rights, now do we?

As for the First Amendment, these rights, like all others, are NOT absolute rights. It is just that simple.

Common law false arrest? LOL! Exactly WHAT do you base this on? LOL!

The simple answer is you cannot answer my questions. Because there is not enough information to go on-which has been my point all along.......

[mattograph]

If we're going to apply the same rigid rules of disclosure in every thread we wouldn't be able to answer any questions because we wouldn't have enough information. We take the OP at face value and go from there.




I don't agree. If I posted a thread titled "Just took my first shots with the 5D Mark II" and posts some pics without EXIF data, would you accept without question that they came from a 5D Mark II?

[TheSonofDarwin]

I don't agree. If I posted a thread titled "Just took my first shots with the 5D Mark II" and posts some pics without EXIF data, would you accept without question that they came from a 5D Mark II?

On the other side, would you accept the EXIF data without question? Most people would answer "Yes." Why?

[Southswede]

Doesn't seem like SS is up to answering the questions put to him, only ridiculing or patronizing members. It's a shame since by the sounds of it he has a wealth of legal knowledge, but is unwilling to share it.

Adrenaline junkies or bullies join the force and end up being the topics of threads like this. It's human nature and you'll find those personalities in every occupation. Unfortunately you also find an us versus them attitude which seems to be present in this thread as well.

Police aren't trained in law they're trained in investigation and enforcement. Six months of Police training doesn't give you a law degree. The idea that if you're in the line of sight of an LEO makes you under his care is absurd.

If we're going to apply the same rigid rules of disclosure in every thread we wouldn't be able to answer any questions because we wouldn't have enough information. We take the OP at face value and go from there.

Given the same situation I'd do what I've been told by the Lawyers in the family. Exercise your right to silence and ask for access to an attorney who will advise you on how to proceed.

Sorry, I just came back (I have to work, you know violating someones civil rights and all).

Exactly what question would you like answered?

[SlowBlink]

If i was a a witness for the defence, no. Since it's a forum where we share our work and critique others I see no reason not to. Should I check the exif on all images to make sure the photographer isn't trying to pull one over on me? I'm not that suspicious by nature.

[mattograph]

On the other side, would you accept the EXIF data without question?

I wouldn't. That's my point.

50% of the time when I am absolutely, positively 100% certain of something, I am wrong. I don't assume that anyone else has a better hit rate.

[TheSonofDarwin]

I wouldn't. That's my point.

50% of the time when I am absolutely, positively 100% certain of something, I am wrong. I don't assume that anyone else has a better hit rate.

Right, but some people might suggest we should take EXIF data as right, or factual on default. There's no more reason to do that than trust the person's word of what settings/gear he used.

And this analogy is starting to get weird.

[nicksan]

Yep, but I think the vast majority of people feel they are absolute rights.
It's simple to figure out if they were, we would actually have total chaos here.

That's what when you talk about photographer's rights, you need to also consider morality and taste.

I'll ask any one of you. If your family member was seriously hurt/injured due to a robbery, rape, accident, whatever...and obviously you are in a dire state of mind, would you mind photographers snapping away trying to get a "good shot" of the bloody mess?

Snap, snap..."Oooh...that's a great angle of the body..."...

I gotta tell you, that would piss me off and I would actually appreciate it if the LEO's would prevent them from taking photographs and commend them for being compassionate.

Now obviously, there is a right way and a wrong way of going about controlling the crowd and photogs and I am not sure what exactly happened in the article the OP posted, but this sort of thing needs to be considered.


Just because YOU say something in unreasonable, does not make it so. We do not have enough information to determine if the LEO's violated anyone Civil Rights, now do we?

As for the First Amendment, these rights, like all others, are NOT absolute rights. It is just that simple.

Common law false arrest? LOL! Exactly WHAT do you base this on? LOL!

The simple answer is you cannot answer my questions. Because there is not enough information to go on-which has been my point all along.......

[mattograph]

If i was a a witness for the defence, no. Since it's a forum where we share our work and critique others I see no reason not to. Should I check the exif on all images to make sure the photographer isn't trying to pull one over on me? I'm not that suspicious by nature.

Sure you are. If you weren't suspicious, this thread would not have even caught your attention. You would have passed it by with a laugh and moved on to a C&C of some fireworks shots.

[SlowBlink]

I don't visit threads because |I'm suspicious. I visit when I think I might have something to add or enjoy the subject matter. Having Jurists in the family I thought it might be the former. Your assumption that you know my emotions or motive from Kentucky in front of your computer is a little strange.

[SlowBlink]

Sorry, I just came back (I have to work, you know violating someones civil rights and all).

Exactly what question would you like answered?

You've just given me all I need to know on your powers of observation. Never mind.

See, I can play the game too. :)

[mattograph]

I don't visit threads because |I'm suspicious. I visit when I think I might have something to add or enjoy the subject matter. Having Jurists in the family I thought it might be the former. Your assumption that you know my emotions or motive from Kentucky in front of your computer is a little strange.

Not talking about your motive. Just about human nature. I don't agree with you with regards to the "facts", but I am not challenging you -- just your point of view.

[SlowBlink]

I've already covered that. I take the OP as face value and proceed from there. If I was suspicious about a thread, that would be the thread I would avoid. I'm here to network with photogs and share work.

edit: If someone is out to fool me into thinking their XT is a 1Ds Mark III I could care less if the images are interesting.

[mattograph]

I'm not that suspicious by nature.

I wasn't speaking of suspicion specifically on how it relates to a thread, but just suspicion in general. I used a very poor analogy.

Let me try this. Would you agree or disagree that the author of the following is suspicious -- in this case, of the credibility and ability of law enforcement?

"You can stand on your front lawn and charge for popcorn without fear of harassment as long as you're not physically interfering with their progress. I've gotten shots of a dead body in the park across the street because I was walking through as the police and ambulance arrived. The police didn't ask me what I was doing or why because it's a public space accessible to anyone. Does it matter why I take shots of the police doing their job? No, I can do it all day long if I chose and if it makes them nervous that reflects on them, not me.

The idea that it's a different world and much more dangerous is a fabrication that's repeated constantly in the media. Many crimes are declining in the US and Canada but when you see the press conferences by politicians and police you'd think Revelations is upon us. It's the new style of getting a bigger budget.

Fear for sale and Sell by Fear.

I grew up listening to two lawyers argue civil rights every thanksgiving/Christmas/Easter/Birthdays. Best advice. Never ask a cop about the law, they know nothing. They know enforcement and at best they're cloudy on that. Never get into a debate with a cop, even if you're right you'll lose....I never listened to them but I know how to pick battles."

[thebishopp]

I don't know. I wasn't there, so I have no way of knowing what the scene was like or anything else. I can, like everyone else, only GUESS.

Here is what I have learned with over 20 years experience: 10% of society cause 90% of societies problems. People simply assume we are all the same. We are not. The 90% are decent, hard working up-standing people. They should NEVER think the 10% are just like them-they are not.

I got back into photography, because I started seeing society, as a whole, like the 10%. I needed to get a broader scope of the bigger picture. Photorgaphers like us, are the 90%. This has restored my faith in people as a whole.

What you have to remember, is that the LEO's have a job to do. Let them do it. If they ask you not to take pictures, don't. I isn't that hard of a concept...is it?

While I agree with the first part of the post we once again come to the issue with the last part of your post.

That statement is a load of crap and you know it.

[Shutterbug Doug]

Is it safe to declare this thread officially hijacked?

And if so, is someone gonna call the cops?

"Hey officer, I hear doug has pictures of your wife nude on his camera. You might wanna confiscate it!"
Not on my camera anymore!:cool:

[SlowBlink]

If I took that statement alone on face value I'd say the author is cynical. If I read his previous posts I might have a better understanding of his overall view.

Statements such as: When police are good at their job they're life savers, nothing short.

If I took all the ridicule and patronizing insults from an author in this thread I could give the impression he was smug and antagonistic. He's most likely a good PO, the odds are in our favour. But we're not addressing a good cop, just what appears to be at face value a bad one.

[thebishopp]

ROFLMAO!!! I just love post like this, along with threads like this one!! It really doesn't seem to matter what message board topics like this come up on. The posters are all the same. They comment on a small part of a total situation, thinking they know all that happened. When it is pointed out that we know next to nothing, based on the source (the short, biased article in this case) they make comments like yours.

The anonymity of the internet is fun to watch! People with an agenda are exposed rather quickly. In spite of all the hand wringing, declaration of violated rights, false bravado about what they would have done, in the end they are the same: the call the cops with their problems, or follow what they are asked to do an any particular scene.....

But these threads are a lot of fun. I never take then serious, because they are not to be taken serious.

You are quick to throw out statements like these.... you will quickly find out that I am not one to hide behind anonymous internet aliases.

My name is Don Swain, originally from Hawaii. I enlisted during desert storm and wound up at Ft. Knox KY with the 1/16th Cavalary. Upon my end of active service I became a police officer in Kentucky. I am now a licensed and insured P.I. here in Indiana. I have been doing private contractor work here in the states for the past 4 years (we were in Lousiana after Katrina and Rita) and I also occasionaly go out on strike details as a camera man (when I am bored enough).

How about you?

You obviously don't realize that you are not talking to some "civilian". I have dealt with my share of domestics (beaten spouses, children), fatality accidents, drug dealers, dead kids, dead adults, assaults, robberies, burglaries, dui's, rapes, etc. etc. etc. I have also seen what you call the 10 percent, though personally I think it's a lot higher than that.

I think it's put up or shut up time.

I am normaly very pro-police and normally find myself on the other side of this argument but it has gone beyond the actual topic.

What we have here is you, a self-professed 20 year veteran of a law enforcement agency (city, county, state, which one? I was city), who advocates absolute authority because he wears a badge... you even bragged about using your "power" regarding that fellows property. I do not doubt you are very familiar with the "magic typwriter" and I'm pretty sure you have altered the details of particular incidents to support your arrests. I certainly hope you haven't stooped to "testylying" though I would not be surprised if you have.

Based soley on the tone and content of the majority of your statements you are one of "those" cops. The one's that give the rest of us a bad name.

[nicksan]

Mine's 12 inches...:lol:

[thebishopp]

Doug is spot on. Just blindly question authority? Nope. I love living in a democracy and not a fascist state and I want to keep it that way.

I was a firefighter/paramedic for years before switching careers. I know hundreds of LEOs and the thing I learned most about them is.......

wait for it.....


they're HUMAN!! and therefore prone to mistakes, errors in judgment, fallibility, etc..
LEOs DO have a hard job but so do lots of people. They also have a dangerous job but so do lots of people. Part of the responsibility of becoming a LEO is knowing when and where your authority ends.

This is spot on. With the small exception that we are supposed to be living in a Republic... but that's another topic (I'm a big T.Jefferson fan).

The problem is that the badge sometimes goes to the head. An old Sgt. used to call it "wyatt earp syndrome", they get a gun and a badge and all of a suddent they're wyatt earp in dodge city. I call it the Judge Dredd syndrome.

An LEO needs to realize where his authority begins and where it ends... It seems that too many these days do not, but perhaps it is merely because these incidents are becoming more noticed due to the media rather than it being an increase.

[mattograph]

If I took that statement alone on face value I'd say the author is cynical. If I read his previous posts I might have a better understanding of his overall view.

Statements such as: When police are good at their job they're life savers, nothing short.

If I took all the ridicule and patronizing insults from an author in this thread I could give the impression he was smug and antagonistic. He's most likely a good PO, the odds are in our favour. But we're not addressing a good cop, just what appears to be at face value a bad one.

In high school, we had a kid on our baseball team that, was an acceptable player, not bad, not good. He wasn't too well liked, though, as he kind of kept to himself.

In any case, about halfway into baseball season, he has just worked his way into the starting lineup, when he is accused of assaulting another student at a party. The student was a girl, but the described assault was not sexual in nature. The girl was a student council officer, had great grades, cheerleader, and well liked by all. She was one of those few people that seemed basically was above reproach.

She reported the assault to her parents, who called police. The police began their investigation, and within 24 hours the kid was kicked off the baseball team. Gone. The coach offered that we didn't have any room on the team for that kind of person. Since nobody really knew him, no one really cared.

A week later, we learned that it was the young mans older brother who assaulted the girl -- he had borrowed his brother's car. See, the kid who got the boot wasn't even AT the party -- he was at home studying. His brother was drunk, and got pissed when the girl wouldn't give him a smoke. She didn't know the kid, but recognized his car, so jumped to the conclusion that it was our teammate who had done it. An honest mistake.

What everybody thought was something we could all take at face value cost a kid an important opportunity.

[thebishopp]

Maybe he yanked out a copy of the "Photographer's Rights " and told the trooper to read it :D Either way , I think both handled it the wrong way.


heh heh, aimed at me was this one? LOL.

A good way is what you suggested, back up and take pictures out of the way... if the officer pursued me and pushed the issue I would have "whipped" out that paper. Of course I wouldn't have been quite so flippant or "my rightsy".

I would have explained calmly that I did have the "right" to be there as I was not contaminated the crime scene nor getting in the way of their investigation. I would have "suggested" that perhaps he take a look at this (that paper), which by no means carries the force of law, but might be some good info that can be passed around at shift change or some such.

I would have also volunteered to give him copies of any pics I take just in case they may come in helpful later to their accident reconstructionists (if it was a fatality) or for his report.

If he continued to be beligerant then I would have asked to speak to his shift commander or sgt. and got his badge number and name.

If he calmed down great, if not then we go from there... (it would be bad for him if he refused to get his LT or Sgt.).

[thebishopp]

What makes you think we don't know the laws we enforce?

Your joking right? 20 years on the force and you haven't run into this? LOL.

[thebishopp]

Both. Whether you are on this side, or that side of a line (or tape) you are still on the scene. They need to watch everyone. You being there takes attention from where is should, or needs to be and places it on "you".

Didn't they teach you anything in investigations class?

Don't you realize that the pictures that photog takes can be valuable?

In addition to getting shots at the scene before the evidence techs get there (ie; people around at the time, what it first looked like, etc. etc.)... if it wasn't an accident and was instead a homocide, b****arly, or something else.

The photog may get a picture of the people involved... maybe they stuck around, maybe there were witneses that you wouldn't have known about that he got on film before they left?

These may be key to solving a case or at the very least may help in the report. Heck, I carried a little 35mm instamatic camera around with me (helped with a couple of convinctions too I might add).

Geez... 20 years and you don't even know that?

Now as far as "watching everyone", while this is true, nothing prevents you from going up and asking who he is, for informational purposes, in a non-confrontational manner (didn't you learn "verbal judo" or whatever they call it where you are at?).

In fact this could be a good start to make an ally instead of an enemy and get copies of what may be valuable evidentiary pictures! WOW! Imagine that! 20 years you say? LOL I learned that my first year out of the academy.

[CountryBoy]

I've already covered that. I take the OP as face value and proceed from there. If I was suspicious about a thread, that would be the thread I would avoid. I'm here to network with photogs and share ork.

edit: If someone is out to fool me into thinking their XT is a 1Ds Mark III I could care less if the images are interesting.
The motive behind me starting this thread was I thought other photographer's might find this interesting as I did. The thread has taken turns I didn't expect. But it has been interesting


heh heh, aimed at me was this one? LOL.

Not really you , but.........:D

A good way is what you suggested, back up and take pictures out of the way... if the officer pursued me and pushed the issue I would have "whipped" out that paper. Of course I wouldn't have been quite so flippant or "my rightsy".

.



There was a time, I would have shoved the "Rights" in his face and told him to read it or shove it someplace else ! But I hope I have gotten wiser over the years. Not that I would just walk away and forget it, there are other ways to handle it. Case in point, when a divorce judge told me I was close to contempt, I should have listened and said "Yes, your Honor", but instead I "stood-up" for myself. So I got to stay all night. lol

I think there's a point there someplace :confused: .

[scorpio_e]

Definately an interesting thread.. If you are close to the crime scene then they probably viewed you as a distraction. On your lawn, they police figured you had a motive.
I have been asked a few times NOT to photograph by security guards. Once i Was compliant because she was nice. ( Even though she had no ground to stand on). The other time, I went via the railroad tracks that paralled the property *LOL*

[thebishopp]

The motive behind me starting this thread was I thought other photographer's might find this interesting as I did. The thread has taken turns I didn't expect. But it has been interesting






There was a time, I would have shoved the "Rights" in his face and told him to read it or shove it someplace else ! But I hope I have gotten wiser over the years. Not that I would just walk away and forget it, there are other ways to handle it. Case in point, when a divorce judge told me I was close to contempt, I should have listened and said "Yes, your Honor", but instead I "stood-up" for myself. So I got to stay all night. lol

I think there's a point there someplace :confused: .

lol, in my younger days I spearheaded a movement in the department for collective bargaining (we were paid less than 19k a year to start and had to give up our raise two years in a row in order to keep our health insurance... lots of other issues too)... boy was that a fight LOL. I also went head to head against some corrupt cops in the department, that got messy and I lost a dog to poisoning over it.

Now that I am older and wiser I try to be a little more tactful LOL. I will agree there is a time and place to fight, you just have to determine when that is and what price you are willing to pay.

Though here is something I written regarding a conversation I was having with someone... granted it is a bit idealogical but I tend to "practice what" I "preach".

Awhile back we were speaking about the recent run of movies detailing epic battles such as the 300, Gladiator, We were Soldiers, etc. etc. etc. and it was mentioned that such tests of courage and mettle no longer existed for the average person.

I disagreed.

Such tests do not always occur on the battlefield, I contend that everyone, throughout life has their own, daily, "Battle of Thermopylae".

This occurs whenever they see something happening and have a chance to do something about it. The choice they make decides whether they are the "Spartans" (those who fought against overwhelming odds for ideals) or the "Persians" (those who merely follow the majority for their own personal gain).
Many of these chances to "do the right thing" are overlooked and go unnoticed by those of questionable character and lesser virtue.

I came across a quote at a Successories a long time ago that I believe sums up the thought:

"Your true character is revealed by the clarity of your convictions, the choices you make, and the promises you keep. Hold strongly to your principles and refuse to follow the currents of convenience. What you say and do defines who you are, and who you are…you are forever."

As far as fault... while primary fault lies with the perpetrator, I believe we share responsibility when we do not question and allow it to continue. After all "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

[EORI]

The simple answer is you cannot answer my questions. Because there is not enough information to go on-which has been my point all along.......

I've answered your question, and you're now shying away from your initial statement of what you would have done as the cop in that situation. If you now believe you don't have enough information to go by, then would you agree that your initial reaction and post was extreme? It is that type of knee-jerk, gestapo mentality that many of us question, especially coming from someone entrusted with a badge and a gun. Just don't take out your anger today on some poor citizen of Charleston.

[DocFrankenstein]

What makes you think we don't know the laws we enforce?
Experience.

[thebishopp]

I've answered your question, and you're now shying away from your initial statement of what you would have done as the cop in that situation. If you now believe you don't have enough information to go by, then would you agree that your initial reaction and post was extreme? It is that type of knee-jerk, gestapo mentality that many of us question, especially coming from someone entrusted with a badge and a gun. Just don't take out your anger today on some poor citizen of Charleston.


EORI,

You can't win with this guy... no matter how logical or thought out a response is he will always avoid the direct question/answer.

I have dealt with cops like what he appears to be. You should see them testify in court, it's sadly hilarious.

Generally they ignore statements they made and generally challenge you to prove that they made the statement to begin with (usually has to be read back to them and which point they will ignore the reply) and answer in cryptic remarks very much like (and in some cases exactly) what he has done.

This is usually an attempt to sound more knowledgeable then what one is as they now appear "mysterious" and sound like they actual know more than they do. That their intellect is obvoiusly higher than yours and therefore any attempt to come down to your level would be impossible.

The fact is, that in most cases, they can not articulate anything factual or even anything that remotely makes sense.

In person, when their inconsistencies are pointed out, or someone disagrees or does not submit to their authority, they usually become beligerant and if in positions of power, tend to use that power to enforce their views.

[EORI]

EORI, You can't win with this guy... no matter how logical or thought out a response is he will always avoid the direct question/answer.

Yes, I think I'm done with this thread. On to the joys of photography, without being told by someone that I can't take a simple picture. And if I'm taking images of a crime scene, it will be at the extreme tele end of my 100-400IS lens. I wouldn't want to upset an officer with an axe to grind. ;)

[BTBeilke]

That's what when you talk about photographer's rights, you need to also consider morality and taste.

I'll ask any one of you. If your family member was seriously hurt/injured due to a robbery, rape, accident, whatever...and obviously you are in a dire state of mind, would you mind photographers snapping away trying to get a "good shot" of the bloody mess?

IMO, you are talking about two completely different things here. A person's rights are their rights. The fact that exercising those rights may be considered by some to be immoral or in bad taste is irrelevant to the conversation concerning the rights themselves. Morality and taste come into play when someone decides on their own whether or not to exercise their rights. In any event, having someone else unlawfully take it upon themselves to make that decision for you is always unacceptable. JMO.

[nicksan]

Perhaps, but I think it's inevitable that morality comes into play when talking about such issues because it's such a hazy line.

I would actually be scared to live in a society of ABSOLUTE laws/rights. If these rights were absolute, we would have chaos. I like to think of them as "reasonable" rights. There can never be a perfect system, that's pretty clear.

I agree completely that having someone else make that decision without just cause is unacceptable. But there is always that hazy line...and once again, I would prefer that LEO be able to dedicate their time/attention to the case at hand instead of having to worry about other factors. But I also realize that's not the reality. Humans will always be curious and crowd up on crime/accident scenes, perhaps take a picture or two etc.

And as made obvious, there is a right way and a wrong way of controlling the crowd.

IMO, you are talking about two completely different things here. A person's rights are their rights. The fact that exercising those rights may be considered by some to be immoral or in bad taste is irrelevant to the conversation concerning the rights themselves. Morality and taste come into play when someone decides on their own whether or not to exercise their rights. In any event, having someone else unlawfully take it upon themselves to make that decision for you is always unacceptable. JMO.

[DocFrankenstein]

Perhaps, but I think it's inevitable that morality comes into play when talking about such issues because it's such a hazy line.

I would actually be scared to live in a society of ABSOLUTE laws/rights.
You have a perverted interpretation of judicial system.

the show "Cops", James Natchwey, Rober Capa, Vietnam journalists, Iraq journalists, the lebanon's "war tourists" photo... all of those pictures produced are morally questionable.

With your standards, you're censoring photographers to only producing pictures of flowers and smiles. Those are your beliefs and if you wouldn't take photos of a horrible crash wreck, that's your choice. But if I see one, I will. And your morals don't, can't and shouldn't stop me if what I'm doing is legal.

Same with abortions. You might believe you're killing a child and never do an abortion. But I might believe that it's better to terminate than have a kid grow up without opportunities it should have. You can't stop me from doing an abortion in that case, short of shooting me, no matter how immoral you think it is.

EDIT: Aristotle's "law is reason free from passion" goes against your logic as well.

[DocFrankenstein]

I'll ask any one of you. If your family member was seriously hurt/injured due to a robbery, rape, accident, whatever...and obviously you are in a dire state of mind, would you mind photographers snapping away trying to get a "good shot" of the bloody mess?

Snap, snap..."Oooh...that's a great angle of the body..."...
A photographer would be my least concern at that point. And no, I wouldn't mind.

[thebishopp]

So a tell me, did you pull off your glasses and slam them on the desk, brfore typing this? ROFLMAO!!!!


This is me in New Orleans:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2651280764_cdfc6c87ac.jpg

The next two pictures were taken by my partner back in 1997. He was leaving for another department in Indiana and wanted to take some pics on a slow day as momentos LOL... He talked me into posing for a couple too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2650455269_6a855d6207.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3083/2651287730_b6372558e3.jpg

Pardon the quality guys... the first was taken with an old sony digital point and shoot (things were a little too messy down there to be lugging around high end digital equipment lol). The last two were from my little 35mm instamatic and I had to scan them in.

Hmmm... no glasses. I do wear contacts though.

Again "swede" put up or shut up.

[BillMarks]

If you don't cross the tape your not in violation of anything so where should their concern be? Inside the tape with a victim or perp or outside the scene with a civilian within his legal rights?

That's not how it works, Doug. For most instances, if you stay behind the tape you are fine. But if Cop on the Scene decides they don't want you taking photos, and they tell you to stop, and you don't stop, you can be arrested. And all an officer would need to tell the judge was that in his/her opinion, your taking photos was interfering with official police business. Judges--who don't like being disobeyed either--tend to cut cops wide latitude on stuff like this.

[Shutterbug Doug]

That's not how it works, Doug. For most instances, if you stay behind the tape you are fine. But if Cop on the Scene decides they don't want you taking photos, and they tell you to stop, and you don't stop, you can be arrested. And all an officer would need to tell the judge was that in his/her opinion, your taking photos was interfering with official police business. Judges--who don't like being disobeyed either--tend to cut cops wide latitude on stuff like this.
Depending on what I was shooting and where I was at the time I would inquire as to why I was asked to stop. As long as I was outside the tape I would see no harm in my actions I would want to know the reason. "Because I said so" is not good enough and something you tell a child that doesn't know better.

And as a previous poster said I would want to inquire to a higher authority before I just walked away. Granted if I saw the officer becoming irate at my "questioning his authority" I would probably just walk and file a complaint to the department on the matter. But once again, if I know I am within my legal boundaries and rights I would not just walk away at the first reaction of an officer trying to "chase me away".

As for the moral aspect some talked about. Morality is a personal issue, some can shoot bloody bodies all day long and feel no remorse or emotional connection. I myself can't do such in good conscious outside of a wartime/terror situation. That and I know I wouldn't want any of my family captured on film, digital or otherwise, if in that situation.

[JBerlotti]

Ok everyone.... Group hug!