Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 28 Feb 2012 (Tuesday) 19:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Do cops have the right to prevent photographers recording time lapse video?

 
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,866 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 742
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Mar 03, 2012 22:53 |  #151

shayneyasinski wrote in post #14017810 (external link)
But NOOOO he was a smarty pants who knew his rights...... try that in mexico.

But it's NOT Mexico.......isn't THAT the difference?

We in the West should NEVER idly accept abuse of power, or one day we WILL know what it's like living in a less than 'free' country.


Cheers,
Bear Dale

Some of my photos featured on Flickr Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Mar 03, 2012 23:10 as a reply to  @ Bear Dale's post |  #152

I think I would have handled it differently. I would have been polite, respectful, and showed him my ID. This would have kept the situation from escalating. Then when I got home I would have then filed harassment charges and or some kind of suit regarding illegal search. This would accomplish both goals - the path of least escalation while still defending my rights and helping to make sure people understand the limits of law enforcement.


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cacawcacaw
Goldmember
Avatar
2,862 posts
Likes: 19
Joined May 2010
Location: Ventura, California
     
Mar 03, 2012 23:21 |  #153

kfreels wrote in post #14017979 (external link)
I think I would have handled it differently. I would have been polite, respectful, and showed him my ID. This would have kept the situation from escalating. Then when I got home I would have then filed harassment charges and or some kind of suit regarding illegal search. This would accomplish both goals - the path of least escalation while still defending my rights and helping to make sure people understand the limits of law enforcement.

... +1


Replacing my Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 17-55mm, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, and 150-500mm with a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. I still have the 17-55 and the 30 available for sale.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shayneyasinski
Senior Member
657 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Canada (sask)
     
Mar 04, 2012 02:51 |  #154

In this day and age of bad stuff going on all the time cops have it bad, they really don't need some guy with a camera being a jerk when they just want some details.
It was a simple question of why are you here and his reply was simply trolling and pushing buttons, maybe he has every right to be there but being a tough guy with a cop will get you nowhere fast.

What harm is there to saying what he was doing and to show ID??

I was shooting some street stuff when a girl asked that I not shoot her and her kids, I simply showed her that I was buying a lens that blurs out everything but my subject and showed her the shot of her and she was ok after seeing that she was not the subject, I could have said I have every right to be here and you cant tell me to stop bla bla bla but I was nice and she was happy.
Gave her a card and she had asked about a job in the summer with her dance class.

So to end my story I feel that the cops keep us safe and showing them some ID and reason for being where you are is better than what the guy did.


my gear Canon 7D, Canon 5DMK2, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 50mm f1.8, canon 430 speedlight, canon 17-55 2.8 IS, canon 100mm macro sigma 10-20, Canon 17-85 , 60 cokin filters , 2x telecoverter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Markk9
Senior Member
284 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Greensboro, NC
     
Mar 04, 2012 06:16 |  #155

shayneyasinski wrote in post #14018716 (external link)
So to end my story I feel that the cops keep us safe and showing them some ID and reason for being where you are is better than what the guy did.

Another sleeple that willingly gives up his right's to make life easier.

Are you a supporter of what the TSA does at airports to?


Retired Eagle Driver.............Lon​g Live the Eagle.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Markk9
Senior Member
284 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Greensboro, NC
     
Mar 04, 2012 06:19 |  #156

Why do some of you people feel that it's ok to let the LEO's walk on your rights, then to correct them?


Retired Eagle Driver.............Lon​g Live the Eagle.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,687 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 251
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Mar 04, 2012 10:13 |  #157

fotoworx wrote in post #14017883 (external link)
But it's NOT Mexico.......isn't THAT the difference?

That and the fact that we don't want it to become Mexico. Well, at least some of us don't.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,687 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 251
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Mar 04, 2012 10:19 |  #158

kfreels wrote in post #14017979 (external link)
I think I would have handled it differently. I would have been polite, respectful, and showed him my ID. This would have kept the situation from escalating. Then when I got home I would have then filed harassment charges and or some kind of suit regarding illegal search. This would accomplish both goals - the path of least escalation while still defending my rights and helping to make sure people understand the limits of law enforcement.

If a police officer asks for your ID, and you say "Sure, no problem, here it is", that's neither harassment nor illegal search. That's the whole point here. It only becomes harassment/illegal search when you exercise your right to refuse, and he detains you because of your refusal.

A judge would laugh your passive/aggressive "solution" out of the courtroom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shayneyasinski
Senior Member
657 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Canada (sask)
     
Mar 04, 2012 11:14 |  #159

Markk9 wrote in post #14019090 (external link)
Another sleeple that willingly gives up his right's to make life easier.

Are you a supporter of what the TSA does at airports to?


You have me all wrong, I feel that a cop is there to protect us so me showing him ID is fine.

Do you show ID when flying ?? Or do you pull out your handgun and tell them to piss off and say you have the right to have a gun and you are not showin any ID cause thats your right as well???

I also just voted on stopping the gov from reading our email as it is private and we in Canada want to keep it that way, WE WON!!

But befor this goes too far I still think that no harm can come from being nice and showing ID to a cop, But you feel that this is giving up your rights , please explain how ?


my gear Canon 7D, Canon 5DMK2, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 50mm f1.8, canon 430 speedlight, canon 17-55 2.8 IS, canon 100mm macro sigma 10-20, Canon 17-85 , 60 cokin filters , 2x telecoverter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 148
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Mar 04, 2012 11:34 |  #160

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em:
AZ Cops to start shooting video of AZ Cops (external link)


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Mar 04, 2012 11:39 |  #161

Markk9 wrote in post #14019090 (external link)
Another sleeple that willingly gives up his right's to make life easier.

This is what I don't understand. Having the right to do something means that you have that option open to you, it does not mean that you are obligated to take it. In this case, you have the option to not show ID, backed up by legislation. By being happy to show it, does not mean that you give up the right to not show it, simply that you choose not to exercise that right.

You say elsewhere in this thread (often) that showing the ID will lead to you losing the right. How? Even if everybody willingly showed it, the right to not do so would still be sitting in the statute books should someone decide not to.

However, if more and more people act like jerks and make life difficult for the cops by refusing to answer any questions or show ID, simply because they have that right and are determined to exercise it, just because they can, then that could lead to legislation compelling people to show ID. I mean, if nobody shows ID and that means that criminals get away with more crime, then your government may act accordingly. If most people are happy to answer a couple of simple questions, then there is no reason to enact such legislation.

Of course you should fight for your rights if somebody tries to take them away, of course you should exercise your rights if you have a reason to. But exercising them because not to do so would mean that you would lose them is a lame argument. Showing ID, when you have no reason to hide it (like being a wanted fugitive for example) does not take that right away from you.

We have many, many rights, do you exercise every single one all the time? I presume you have a right to go to church and practice the religion of your choice, so does not being religious take that right away? I have the right to free medical care, I could go to the doctor and get a free medical check tomorrow if I wanted, it's my right. I haven't been to the dpctor for a couple of years now, does that mean I give up my right to free care? No, it doesn't.

Our rights give us options that may not be available in other countries, we may choose to take that option or not (show ID or not show ID, it's a choice) but whichever option you choose, you always have the right to that choice. You give up nothing.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have had a few meetings with the law, whilst doing my photography. I have answered their questions and they have been satisfied within a couple of minutes and left me to get on with things. I never saw that as giving up my rights, simply choosing to be friendly and allay their concerns. Had they asked me to move along and stop taking photos, then I would stand by my right to not do so, because I want to get the shots I was there for. Had they asked me to hand over my CF card, I would refuse to do so too. The latter two situations have never arisen, because I have always satisfied them as to my intent very quickly.

I have also had numerous dealings with the police due to excessive speed whilst driving (hey, I like to drive quickly) however, by being polite and answering their questions in a friendly manner, even though I was in the wrong I have never received a ticket, always a friendly "keep your speed down, sir" and let on my way. Be respectable to the police and they will (generally) be respectable to you. Push them, and they will push back.

I have no problem with standing on my rights, when I wish to. You want to search my house? Get a warrant. I just don't see the point in standing on rights when there is no reason to. Saying that I will lose the right if I don't, just makes no sense.

Here in the UK, most people happily answer police, when there is a reason to. However, "sheeple" we are not. When the government wanted to bring in compulsory ID cards, the people who are happy to co-operate with the police voluntarily, suddenly got very vocal and stopped the scheme dead. Despite our general lack of standing on our rights when chatting to the police, we do not have to carry ID at any time, even when driving.

Fighting for your rights is admirable and just, however being a jerk simply because you have a right to be, is just stupid. The more trouble photographers make for the police, the more they will go out of their way to check up on them. I don't want to get the brunt of it, because some other idiot has wound a cop up and made him see photographers in general as troublemakers with something to hide.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dragoro
Senior Member
Avatar
268 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Troy Mi
     
Mar 04, 2012 11:51 |  #162

In my opinion, refusing to show your id just because you can and so called "defending your rights" is childish and immature.


Nikon D810:
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S ED LENS
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD
Benjamin Timmins Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,687 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 251
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Mar 04, 2012 14:01 |  #163

sandpiper wrote in post #14020508 (external link)
However, if more and more people act like jerks and make life difficult for the cops by refusing to answer any questions or show ID, simply because they have that right and are determined to exercise it, just because they can, then that could lead to legislation compelling people to show ID.

You believe that people will lose their rights by exercising them, but not if they give them up voluntarily? That's bizarre.

sandpiper wrote in post #14020508 (external link)
I mean, if nobody shows ID and that means that criminals get away with more crime, then your government may act accordingly. If most people are happy to answer a couple of simple questions, then there is no reason to enact such legislation.

You don't seem to know much about the U.S. system of law. Legislators can enact just about anything, but the courts then have the final say over whether the legislation is permitted under the Constitution. If they decide it isn't, it's no longer law. This has already happened to many state laws that prohibited the audio/videotaping of police officers.

You also don't seem to understand that we are not discussing a universal right to refuse to show ID. As has been explained multiple times in this thread, if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or may be committed by an individual, the police officer has the legal right to require that individual to show ID, and to detain the individual. At no point in this thread has anyone argued otherwise. The police officer in the case being discussed had no such suspicion, therefore the photographer was not legally required to show ID or answer any questions. It may not be that way in the UK, but that's your loss.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,687 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 251
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Mar 04, 2012 14:03 |  #164

Dragoro wrote in post #14020570 (external link)
In my opinion, refusing to show your id just because you can and so called "defending your rights" is childish and immature.

In my opinion, asking a citizen to produce ID under circumstances where it's not warranted is an abuse of power.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
R2duBot
Member
Avatar
90 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Beer City, USA
     
Mar 04, 2012 14:28 as a reply to  @ moose10101's post |  #165

I had a similar situation happen a few weeks ago, but with a much better outcome.

Me and a friend were doing some long exposure pics on a highway overpass at about 11pm when a Sheriff's Deputy pulled up and in a confused tone asks: "What in the hell are you guys doing?!?" Being our jovial self's, we smiled and told him exactly why we where there. To my surprise, all he was concerned about was our safety. He mentioned wearing a reflective vest next time- good idea! If he had asked for my id, I would have produced it without hesitation. I don't feel that being an infringement of my rights at all.

Back to the OP. If the police were responding to a 911 call/complaint about "a man on an overpass", then wouldn't they have the right to ask said "man on the overpass" for his ID?


_______________
6D -- 7D -- Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II -- Canon 50mm f/1.4 -- Σ 70-200mm f/2.8 OS -- Canon 400mm f/5.6L -- 430EX II -- Orion Skyview Pro w/True Track

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

15,887 views & 0 likes for this thread
Do cops have the right to prevent photographers recording time lapse video?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is PradoPhoto
1063 guests, 278 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.