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 27 Jun 2014 (Friday) 16:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Photographer vs. Police

 
this thread is locked
monty28428
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,121 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 250
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Carolina Beach
     
Jun 28, 2014 02:21 |  #16

tstowe wrote in post #16998849 (external link)
Ok... cop is a little full of himself. BUT am I the only one who thinks the videographer goes out of his way to put himself in bad situations?

Agreed - photog is way out of line IMHO and just looking to create a problem...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bumpintheroad
Self-inflicted bait
Avatar
1,656 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 339
Joined Oct 2013
Location: NJ, USA
     
Jun 28, 2014 02:57 |  #17

YamahaRob wrote in post #16998869 (external link)
+1

One thing I tell people I know who do the FTP thing, is "Who you going to call if someone steals your car, kicks your ass, etc...?". Ironically they say they'll call the cops.

Call the cops for what? The damage has already been done and the cops have already failed. Filing a report is pro-forma to get compensated by your insurance, but in terms of the police actively investigating and apprehending the perpetrator, lot's of luck.

Police rarely prevent crimes, they respond to crimes after they've been committed. The courts have ruled that the police are not required to interfere with a crime or attack. Apparently they are too busy sitting on the side of the road waiting to trap speeders, or driving through mall parking lots to find vehicles with expired registrations to have to bother patrolling neighborhoods to possibly prevent crimes.

Of course walk around your quiet little town taking pictures and all of a sudden you're a potential terrorist that must be detailed, equipment confiscated and questioned thoroughly.


-- Mark | Gear | Flickr (external link) | Picasa (external link) | Youtube (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Image editing is okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Acetoolguy
Senior Member
Avatar
397 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2009
Location: East Coast, USA
     
Jun 28, 2014 04:27 |  #18

bumpintheroad wrote in post #16998980 (external link)
Police rarely prevent crimes,.

How do you measure crimes that did not happen?
The fact that they exist prevent crimes.


Never use a paragraph when a sentence will do.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,385 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1682
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Jun 28, 2014 05:12 |  #19

Luckless wrote in post #16998941 (external link)
Would you like someone to come along and bother you at YOUR job, possibly while you are having a really bad day, and tell YOU that you are wrong?

Waah?! Seriously, how does being on the other side of the road "bother" a policeman? The guy was standing there filming. That isn't illegal and it certainly doesn't interfere with the police doing there job any more than someone standing watching would. There simply was no "reasonable grounds" and the police should never have approached him.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rdwalton
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Jun 28, 2014 06:13 |  #20

YamahaRob wrote in post #16998869 (external link)
+1

One thing I tell people I know who do the FTP thing, is "Who you going to call if someone steals your car, kicks your ass, etc...?". Ironically they say they'll call the cops.

Well who are you going to call when the police abuse their power against you and attempt to harass you and you don't know your rights? Who's going to believe you if there is no video evidence? Could the guy have been more cooperative? Yes, But he was well within in rights and broke no laws.


Reginald D. Walton | GEAR | Smugmugexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rdwalton
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Jun 28, 2014 06:17 |  #21

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16999050 (external link)
Waah?! Seriously, how does being on the other side of the road "bother" a policeman? The guy was standing there filming. That isn't illegal and it certainly doesn't interfere with the police doing there job any more than someone standing watching would. There simply was no "reasonable grounds" and the police should never have approached him.

I do think it was OK for the police officer to approach the guy and see what was going on. However, after he was given the name and date of birth, he could have just went and ran a check for outstanding warrants and/or any past criminal activity and once that cleared, they could have just left him alone.


Reginald D. Walton | GEAR | Smugmugexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MDJAK
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
24,722 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 181
Joined Nov 2004
Location: New York
     
Jun 28, 2014 07:09 |  #22

Officer had a right to inquire. Dude is a dickhead. Doesn't have ID? Can't remember last time I was out and about without my wallet. He's just trying to cause trouble.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
Avatar
2,677 posts
Likes: 895
Joined Nov 2009
     
Jun 28, 2014 07:12 |  #23

Acetoolguy wrote in post #16999025 (external link)
How do you measure crimes that did not happen?
The fact that they exist prevent crimes.

If that were true the gaols would not be full of convicted felons.


It never ceases to amaze me how dense intelligent people are.
I’ve had more intelligent conversations with lobotomised amoebas.
.- -. --- - .... . .-. -- --- .-. --- -. .. -.-. -- --- .-. --- -. .- -.. -.. . -.. - --- -- -.-- .. --. -. --- .-. . .-.. .. ... -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wysiwyg59
Senior Member
Avatar
284 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 74
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Southern MN
     
Jun 28, 2014 08:56 |  #24

Today's problem/issue is being questioned/stopped/arr​ested while having a camera. It's like a few years ago; stopped while being "black". No LEA has the right to question a individual recording by still or video that is not interfering with their duties.


Rick
Canon A1, 7D2, 40D, Canon G12, Sony NEX-5N
Canon 70-200 IS F2.8 L, Canon 35mm f1.4 L, EF-S 18-200mm, EF-S 10-22mm
wysiwyg@hickorytech.ne​t (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jun 28, 2014 09:07 |  #25

wysiwyg59 wrote in post #16999267 (external link)
No LEA has the right to question a individual recording by still or video that is not interfering with their duties.

I don't agree with that at all. In my opinion, any law enforcement officer (LEO) who has a reasonable suspicion that something hinky may possibly be happening should be able to talk to anyone involved in that "something". That does not mean that threatening the person with arrest, confiscation of property, or other similar things is permissible unless there's a definable level of suspicion to go on. I believe "probable cause" is an appropriate term for this.

By the same token, citizens who - like the "photographer" in the video - are there basically to harass LEOs who are at work don't have a God-given right to do that either and I believe that those folks should suffer some sort of penalty. Now, if the "photographer" had produced ID and been courteous to the officers, I don't think there would have been anything happening to warrant his posting his video.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
texkam
"Just let me be a stupid photographer."
Avatar
1,383 posts
Likes: 663
Joined Mar 2012
Location: By The Lake in Big D
     
Jun 28, 2014 09:17 |  #26

With no witnesses, this could have gone from bad to worse. Lucky he still has his memory card.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,600 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 673
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Jun 28, 2014 09:26 |  #27

Acetoolguy wrote in post #16999025 (external link)
How do you measure crimes that did not happen?
The fact that they exist prevent crimes.

Yes. If the threat of arrest and incarceration did not exist, we would have a society ruled by the criminals.

john crossley wrote in post #16999125 (external link)
If that were true the gaols would not be full of convicted felons.

What? You think that the police are everywhere at all times? That doesn't happen even in a police state. And not all crooks are stupid enough to wait around until a cop comes by to commit a crime in front of him. The fact that a cop could come by at any time is a deterrent.

SkipD wrote in post #16999290 (external link)
I don't agree with that at all. In my opinion, any law enforcement officer (LEO) who has a reasonable suspicion that something hinky may possibly be happening should be able to talk to anyone involved in that "something". That does not mean that threatening the person with arrest, confiscation of property, or other similar things is permissible unless there's a definable level of suspicion to go on. I believe "probable cause" is an appropriate term for this.

By the same token, citizens who - like the "photographer" in the video - are there basically to harass LEOs who are at work don't have a God-given right to do that either and I believe that those folks should suffer some sort of penalty. Now, if the "photographer" had produced ID and been courteous to the officers, I don't think there would have been anything happening to warrant his posting his video.

Agree. Some people like to "bait" the police, secure in the belief that it's okay to act like an idiot and piss off a guy who carries a gun for a living. While I have no problems with someone taking photos of LEO's doing their jobs, I also don't feel that we have the right to do it solely with the intent of making them appear to be in the wrong, and that happens altogether too often. We have all seen video of a cop using force to subdue a suspect without ever seeing the video of the incident that provoked it. It's a convenient way of slanting the news, without actually lying, by taking something out of context.

I'm not saying that the police are always right, but they are right most of the time - most cops do a hard job very well. Unfortunately, most of those occasions are never publicized - good news is so rarely newsworthy.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gremlin75
Goldmember
Avatar
2,727 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 216
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jun 28, 2014 09:33 |  #28

I work with the police a great deal. I have many friends who are officers and I have lost a friend in the line of duty so I am far from a "FTP" person. I have been video recorded numerous times during the course of doing my job as well. "Big brother" is always watching and everyone has a video camera now a day!

Those of you who are saying the photographer is in the wrong are just....well I'll leave it as "are just" ;)

He was on a public side walk recording actions taking place in an area easily visible to the public. An officer approached and he informed the officer that he was video and audio recording (a respectful thing to do). He gave the officer his name and DOB and respectfully declined to give any other info. He has the right to do so. Did he come off a little cocky? Yeah, but to me he was still respectful. The officer probably went back to his car, ran the name and DOB and nothing came back on it.

Incident ends, he's walking away, and is stopped by a different officer. This office has a FTP complex (where P=public). The photog again respectfully declined to give more info and tells him that another officer already has his info. The officer threaten to arrest the photog (pretty much because he doesn't like that the guy isn't bowing down to his every request). The office try's to take the camera from the photog, which is illegal with out the consent of the photog and could even be considered attempted theft in some, if not all, jurisdictions. Trying to get the video "for evidence" is laughable but worth a shot. The officer asked and the photog refused, once again his right do to so. The officer asked a few more times and the photog said that if he needed the video then it could be subpoenaed (good response). At this point I beleive the only reason the photog is still being questioned is because the officer is pissed off that photog is not willing to submit to his questions and is questioning his idol threats.

The first officer handled the situation well. Came over, questioned the photog about what he was doing, got his name and DOB (which the photog did not have to give but if you have no warrants give it and be done with the situation). The officer tried to get more info, the photog refused so the officer left as there was no reason to continue any questioning. It was the second officer that escalated the situation and I beleive should be reprimanded for attempting to take the photog's camera with out his consent.

There are a lot of great officer who know the law, do not abuse their power, do not use 9/11 as a blanket statement to try and abuse people's right, and do their job very well. Officers like the second officer though make people have the FTP mentality. To be fair that officer has also probably delt with hundreds of cocky a-holes who think they know the law and don't. Dealing with those people can make you angry and biter, but that's no excuse!

Also to say the photog was trying to "bait" the officers is ridicules. He was across the street not interfering with the incident that was going on. People give up their rights far to quickly all out of fear. I have watched one officer (off duty) refuse the continued questions from another and get threatened with arrest (though he gave his info and answered questions pertinent to the situation). After the situation the off duty officer just said the officer had no reason to continue questioning him and the he hated offered like that because then he (the off duty officer) has to deal with the people that that officer pissed off!

Officers deal with a lot of crap, put themselves in dangerous situations, get paid crap, are always under a microscope, and have to deal with a lot of jack holes. It's the job. You know that going in. I beleive you deal with it or don't do the job!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,678 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 246
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Jun 28, 2014 09:35 |  #29

SkipD wrote in post #16999290 (external link)
I don't agree with that at all. In my opinion, any law enforcement officer (LEO) who has a reasonable suspicion that something hinky may possibly be happening should be able to talk to anyone involved in that "something". That does not mean that threatening the person with arrest, confiscation of property, or other similar things is permissible unless there's a definable level of suspicion to go on. I believe "probable cause" is an appropriate term for this.

Just how far would a police officer have to stretch the definition of "probable cause" to fit "using a video camera" under it?

PD's all around the country have had to pay out after one of their officers harassed someone taking photos or video. I've yet to hear of a single case where a PD won a case by claiming "probable cause". At this point, failure to properly train them is not only legally irresponsible, it's fiscally irresponsible too. It's costing taxpayers a lot of money.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
Avatar
2,677 posts
Likes: 895
Joined Nov 2009
     
Jun 28, 2014 10:09 |  #30

Preeb wrote in post #16999325 (external link)
What? You think that the police are everywhere at all times? That doesn't happen even in a police state. And not all crooks are stupid enough to wait around until a cop comes by to commit a crime in front of him. The fact that a cop could come by at any time is a deterrent.

So are saying that gaols aren't full of convicted felons?


It never ceases to amaze me how dense intelligent people are.
I’ve had more intelligent conversations with lobotomised amoebas.
.- -. --- - .... . .-. -- --- .-. --- -. .. -.-. -- --- .-. --- -. .- -.. -.. . -.. - --- -- -.-- .. --. -. --- .-. . .-.. .. ... -

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

20,375 views & 0 likes for this thread
Photographer vs. Police
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 mjp321kia
1069 guests, 281 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.