
To sum things up BF, there are too many people eager to preach about rights instead of responsibilities.
David
You're preaching to the choir, Dave.
Too many people are concerned more with what you can do instead of what you should do...
BreitlingFan Goldmember ![]() 1,427 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jun 2010 Location: California More info | Aug 21, 2011 14:56 | #16 ![]() Woodworker wrote in post #12973022 ![]() To sum things up BF, there are too many people eager to preach about rights instead of responsibilities. David You're preaching to the choir, Dave. Gear List
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 21, 2011 14:57 | #17 This is a pointless debate. There's a fine line between being a good proactive cop and infringing on someone's rights, and it takes training and common sense and the will to do the right thing. You can't come up with a single rule on how police should behave in every situation - just general guidelines. I don't want police denying me my rights just as much as I don't want them to be afraid to do what it takes to protect me from the criminals. Ex-Canon shooter. Now Sony Nex.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ssim POTN Landscape & Cityscape Photographer 2005 ![]() 10,884 posts Likes: 5 Joined Apr 2003 Location: southern Alberta, Canada More info | Aug 21, 2011 15:10 | #18 Woodworker wrote in post #12973022 ![]() there are too many people eager to preach about rights instead of responsibilities. David I like that statement. In this particular case I don't see much news in here. Most of us know that we run the chance of being stopped. Personally I would hope that they would error on the side of caution and question anyone who may look suspicious. If the police did nothing and then something happens we will jump all over them. They are in a position where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It must have been a slow news day in Long Beach. What is the difference between this and someone that is traffic stopped for a simple check. Show your ID, they run you through the computer and you go on your merry way, just as the photographer did in this case. My life is like one big RAW file....way too much post processing needed.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BreitlingFan Goldmember ![]() 1,427 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jun 2010 Location: California More info | Aug 21, 2011 15:16 | #19 ![]() I'm willing to bet that, had the guy been taking pictures of a harbor seal, he wouldn't have been questioned. The article, however, states that he was taking photos of a refinery. Gear List
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 21, 2011 16:09 | #20 Personally, I don't have an issue with the officers behavior. What struck me, and I thought of interest of others here, was the LB policy.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 21, 2011 16:36 | #21 miniphotog wrote in post #12973550 ![]() You can (and we do) give our police department the tools and authority to stop a riot But we don't give them all the tools. Implantation of RFIDs with GPS chips and a small amount of memory would really help them identify such criminals. The process is fast and simple, and the only people who could possibly protest are those with something to hide. It's a small step beyond having CCTV and PNCR cameras tracking everybody's movements. Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
LOG IN TO REPLY |
quiksquirrel Senior Member 608 posts Likes: 8 Joined Mar 2011 Location: Denmark More info | Aug 21, 2011 16:53 | #22 hollis_f wrote in post #12973656 ![]() It's a small step beyond having CCTV and PNCR cameras tracking everybody's movements. If you seriously believe that those things are there to "track your movement", I would strongly suggest finding a professional to talk to about paranoia issues.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Miki G Goldmember 1,157 posts Likes: 301 Joined Feb 2011 Location: Ireland More info | Aug 22, 2011 03:01 | #23 The police are there to protect us from all types of criminality & sometimes it's our own actions as photographers that are seen by the officer as being suspicious. The police would be negligent if they ignored photographers in all situations where their suspicions were arised just because it might offend the photographer. If the photographer is genuine, he/she shouldn't have any problems.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
moose10101 registered smartass More info | Aug 22, 2011 09:14 | #24 Nomofica wrote in post #12969962 ![]() We're talking about the simple act of being asked what you're up to, not having a home searched for evidence. Try and keep things relevant. ![]() Your statement, "an innocent person has nothing to hide", has been used by just about every person who wanted to curtail constitutional rights. That makes my question relevant. Care to answer it?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MattPharmD Senior Member ![]() 255 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jun 2011 More info | Aug 22, 2011 11:43 | #25 I think that this is no minor issue. Of course, we look at this from a photographer's perspective, and I don't like the idea that my hobby is being viewed as inherently suspicious. The idea that terrorists go around using DSLR's in broad daylight to take scouting photos is a little odd and completely unproven. I would think it much more likely that they would use a P&S or something extremely small. Photography is just a hobby for me.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
argyle Cream of the Crop ![]() 8,187 posts Likes: 21 Joined Apr 2007 Location: DFW, Texas More info | Gotta disagree...its not a big deal, nor is it a major issue. Let's face it...someone taking pictures of a refinery is not something one sees every day. Sunset, maybe...refinery, no. The photog was checked out, everything was kosher, and he was allowed to continue. Your quote from Franklin is a favorite that seems to get trotted out whenever this topic comes up...no matter the context. "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BreitlingFan Goldmember ![]() 1,427 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jun 2010 Location: California More info | Aug 22, 2011 14:53 | #27 ![]() argyle wrote in post #12979349 ![]() Gotta disagree...its not a big deal, nor is it a major issue. Let's face it...someone taking pictures of a refinery is not something one sees every day. Sunset, maybe...refinery, no. The photog was checked out, everything was kosher, and he was allowed to continue. Your quote from Franklin is a favorite that seems to get trotted out whenever this topic comes up...no matter the context. Exactly. Gear List
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MattPharmD Senior Member ![]() 255 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jun 2011 More info | Aug 22, 2011 16:18 | #28 I wasn't saying that this particular incident (the refinery) was a violation of rights or liberties. I also didn't mean to imply that any passing questioning by police is a violation of rights. Photography is just a hobby for me.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tonylong ...winded ![]() More info | Aug 22, 2011 17:37 | #29 You know, I don't recall the details, but I seem to remember that US courts have upheld the right of LEOs to require the ID of an individual, meaning that if one refuses, things could get nasty, and also meaning that for some finite time the individual is being "detained". Tony
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MattPharmD Senior Member ![]() 255 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jun 2011 More info | Aug 22, 2011 18:14 | #30 Trying to answer your question...but don't have a lot of details... Photography is just a hobby for me.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 759 guests, 298 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |