Photographer vs. Police

Maelochs wrote in post #17003601
Ah, but in this case we can reasonably assume the recorder wanted a confrontation—he didn't learn all his rights accidentally. He is part of the "copwatch" movement which tried s to catch cops breaking the law.

While he was not deliberately Provoking a confrontation, I think he was deliberately inviting one. Possibly he was filming traffic stops to catch cop s using "stop and frisk" illegally (this was mentioned on a related website.)

The guy wasn't trying to start a problem, specifically, but he wasn't there, with the ready knowledge of his rights, by accident. What he was trying to do, as near as I can tell, is just what he did: catch a cop breaking the law.

Considering the number of complaints other people on other websites posted about the offending officer and others in that town, this guy might have gone to that own specifically looking for abuses to capture on film.

I am (pretty) sure he knew he could end up beat up and in jail with no camera, but was young and cocky and decided not to care.

This keeps getting better.

He knew his rights, therefore he wants a confrontation. He's aware and prepared, which makes him a public threat. Only a subversive mother would go out of the way to know their rights and to defend them. Correct?

I like your logic. In that line of thought, let's voluntarily submit to random searches, because if you're honest and have nothing to hide, you should have no problem consenting.

It's not about the rights of photographers, per se. It's easy to find videos on YouTube from opponents of sobriety checkpoints and agricultural check stations who are eager to make a similar point for public viewing.

Over on the Invasive Plants on the Net (IPOTN) forum, they're probably discussing with equal vehemence videos in which "fruit ****s" (national socialists) at agricultural inspection stations stop drivers.

Maelochs wrote in post #17003601
Possibly he was filming traffic stops to catch cop s using "stop and frisk" illegally (this was mentioned on a related website.)

The guy wasn't trying to start a problem, specifically, but he wasn't there, with the ready knowledge of his rights, by accident. What he was trying to do, as near as I can tell, is just what he did: catch a cop breaking the law.

Considering the number of complaints other people on other websites posted about the offending officer and others in that town, this guy might have gone to that own specifically looking for abuses to capture on film.

What you're describing used to be done by "investigative journalists", until nearly all the "journalists" decided that "investigative journalism" was actually hard work.

Doc Frankenstein: I am not sure I get your point.

You say "He knew his rights, therefore he wants a confrontation. He's aware and prepared, which makes him a public threat. Only a subversive mother would go out of the way to know their rights and to defend them. Correct?"

I don't know what you are talking about. Did you read the thread, or one post?

This guy did want some interaction with the cops. Go look up Copwatch---this is what these guys do.

Why you think calling him a "public threat" is effective sarcasm is beyond me, considering I said I would like Copwatch to continue to do what it does—maybe you overlooked that?

Sorry about your inability to comprehend—or maybe you didn't read any more than that one thread? I'd advise you to read back a ways so you can better understand what you are reading before you try to attack another poster.

Just a suggestion.


Moose10101: Maybe you also didn't read back far enough, to the part where I said I had been working as a reporter trying to photograph cops in action and had been illegally chased off—offered the choice of arrest (charges would likely have been dropped, and in any case I couldn't have fought in court against a dozen or more cops all telling the same prepared story.)

And following and photographing cops is a very small part of "investigative journalism." Most investigative journalism is like any other kind of journalism: knocking on doors and making phone calls until you find someone who will point you in the right direction, staying up all night reading obscure public records to look for errors or omissions or outright illegality, then more phone calls and door-knocks using the new information to try to pry out a little, more, and around again and again until a clear picture emerges.

The main reason most reporters don't do investigative journalism is that it is very expensive—it often takes many months or longer to produce a single story, and often that story is very complicated, which means publishers don't really like to print or broadcast them.

You know, the TV networks didn't really want to report on Watergate at first; it was too complex and confusing. One network broadcast a two-part explanation but the first part took most of a half-hour news show, and the second one was cut in half because the advertisers didn't like it or some such.

Nowadays it is Much worse, because all anyone cares about is clicks, web traffic. A bunch of Top Tens and a few Rock Star Smokes Pot stories take so little money and generate so much traffic, no paper or network wants to lay out a couple hundred grand to send a few reports out on a long, difficult assignment which in the end might not even turn up a usable story.

Not saying reporters are all supermen trying to save society, but the rest of the news industry has really limited reporters—and has hit photographers a lot harder.

Maelochs wrote in post #17004176
Doc Frankenstein: I am not sure I get your point.

You say "He knew his rights, therefore he wants a confrontation. He's aware and prepared, which makes him a public threat. Only a subversive mother would go out of the way to know their rights and to defend them. Correct?"

I don't know what you are talking about. Did you read the thread, or one post?

This guy did want some interaction with the cops. Go look up Copwatch---this is what these guys do.

Why you think calling him a "public threat" is effective sarcasm is beyond me, considering I said I would like Copwatch to continue to do what it does—maybe you overlooked that?

So you feel that it's all right, maybe even a good thing to to set up a situation where you'll have to defend your rights? You feel that entrapment is a good thing, as long as the police are on the losing side? That all this is. The guy taking the video had no other reason for being there. There was nothing happening that was worth recording until he created it. A real journalist would be disciplined, possibly lose his job for creating a story where none actually existed, but Joe Public doesn't have to abide by any ethics code. Once the first cop walked away, anyone not spoiling for a fight would have turned off the camera and left, assuming that he even bothered to start shooting in the first place. He wouldn't have continued to record all the nothing that was going on as he left the scene. There would have been no incident at all if the dope had just minded his own business in the first place.

Yes the 2nd cop was wrong, but to defend the photographer for setting him up is just endorsing another wrong. As usual, two wrongs don't make a right, and if the first wrong hadn't been committed, the second would never have happened. Any responsible person who was truly concerned about police abuses wouldn't deliberately provoke an incident, he would simply be prepared to record it if he actually witnessed abusive behavior taking place.

What I find most disturbing is your attitude that it's alright to trick or bait a policemen into making a mistake so it can be put on You Tube to embarrass him and to feed the photographer's ego.

Preeb wrote in post #17004409
So you feel that it's all right, maybe even a good thing to to set up a situation where you'll have to defend your rights? You feel that entrapment is a good thing, as long as the police are on the losing side? That all this is. The guy taking the video had no other reason for being there. There was nothing happening that was worth recording until he created it. A real journalist would be disciplined, possibly lose his job for creating a story where none actually existed, but Joe Public doesn't have to abide by any ethics code. Once the first cop walked away, anyone not spoiling for a fight would have turned off the camera and left, assuming that he even bothered to start shooting in the first place. He wouldn't have continued to record all the nothing that was going on as he left the scene. There would have been no incident at all if the dope had just minded his own business in the first place.

Yes the 2nd cop was wrong, but to defend the photographer for setting him up is just endorsing another wrong. As usual, two wrongs don't make a right, and if the first wrong hadn't been committed, the second would never have happened. Any responsible person who was truly concerned about police abuses wouldn't deliberately provoke an incident, he would simply be prepared to record it if he actually witnessed abusive behavior taking place.

What I find most disturbing is your attitude that it's alright to trick or bait a policemen into making a mistake so it can be put on You Tube to embarrass him and to feed the photographer's ego.

The cops use entrapment methods all the time... double standard?

As for your assertion that nothing of interest was happening.. i'm surprised to hear this from another photographer. The interest of a subject is subjective, and why i have many people think i'm photographing them...as i take a pic of a flower/weed, fence-post (insert any other object, that those without vision can't comprehend) that may be in that general direction. Don't judge!

Maelochs wrote in post #17004176
I don't know what you are talking about. Did you read the thread, or one post?

I don't know how to respond to a thread. I respond to short statements in posts.

It looks to me that his intent was to film, not to have an interaction. How do you know what a guy wants when he posts a video?

I didn't see him stating he's part of copwatch, so it's pure conjecture.

You claim to know the intent AND group affiliation of the person who's filming. Maybe you're speculating, maybe you're telepathic. But you might as well say "Go look up terrorism---this is what these guys do" The sarcasm (it's actually an analogy) drives the point across, because you don't know motivation and group affiliation based on a video, yet assume... so you could just as easily assume terrorism and it would fit. The cop who grabbed the camera appeared to be thinking in the same way.

That's old material. I've read the same thing in the beginning of your post.

DocFrankenstein---Did you go look up Copwatch? His video is posted there. Not psychic, not telepathic, just did my research before posting.

Anyway, I think we have both stated pour positions. Not much more to say to one another right now. I hope all your photos come out as good or better than you expect.

Preeb wrote in post #17004409
So you feel that it's all right, maybe even a good thing to to set up a situation where you'll have to defend your rights? You feel that entrapment is a good thing, as long as the police are on the losing side? That all this is. The guy taking the video had no other reason for being there. There was nothing happening that was worth recording until he created it. A real journalist would be disciplined, possibly lose his job for creating a story where none actually existed, but Joe Public doesn't have to abide by any ethics code. Once the first cop walked away, anyone not spoiling for a fight would have turned off the camera and left, assuming that he even bothered to start shooting in the first place. He wouldn't have continued to record all the nothing that was going on as he left the scene. There would have been no incident at all if the dope had just minded his own business in the first place.

Yes the 2nd cop was wrong, but to defend the photographer for setting him up is just endorsing another wrong. As usual, two wrongs don't make a right, and if the first wrong hadn't been committed, the second would never have happened. Any responsible person who was truly concerned about police abuses wouldn't deliberately provoke an incident, he would simply be prepared to record it if he actually witnessed abusive behavior taking place.

What I find most disturbing is your attitude that it's alright to trick or bait a policemen into making a mistake so it can be put on You Tube to embarrass him and to feed the photographer's ego.

What wrong did the videographer commit? He stopped to film an interaction between police and the public (doesn't matter what it was). After his completely reasonable interaction with the 1st officer, did he do anything further to provoke the second? Did he move closer? Did he verbally provoke the cops?

Then whole point of this is that the cops SHOULDN'T be "provoked" by a member of the public (doesn't matter who) recording them. The courts have held this to be a legal activity over and over. If they aren't doing anything wrong then they shouldn't care. In fact, another recording of an arrest should help corroborate whatever story is put in the report. If it doesn't, something else is wrong.

Without recording, this particular abusive behavior doesn't take place.

Preeb wrote in post #17004409
So you feel that it's all right, maybe even a good thing to to set up a situation where you'll have to defend your rights? You feel that entrapment is a good thing, as long as the police are on the losing side? That all this is.

So now standing on the street with a video camera is "entrapment"? That's pathetic.

Entrapment: a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit.

That 2nd officer probably acts the way he did on a regular basis. He wasn't "entrapped"; a situation may have been set up where he could act as he usually would. That's a "sting", not "entrapment". Big difference, legally and morally.

The whole incident, when looked at broadly, shows a bit of a problem in our society.

The photographer is most likely an American. The Cops were most likely American (let's assume that for now). They are supposed to support and serve each other.

In a perfect democracy (which is impossible to achieve, but worthy of our best effort) the government would always seek to serve the citizens and the citizens would always seek to help in that endeavor.

Next...

So much of the information we read, see and hear these days isn't processed correctly by individuals or groups, and a zeitgeist becomes very slow to turn around, and it's due to the fact that most Americans (I can't speak for other cultures) want to be spoon-fed opinions rather than truly weigh the pieces of information objectively.

Often people will literally say, "I don't want to hear it." They don't want their opinions challenged. Their pride and ignorance are huge barriers. They don't want to feel stupid, and often they feel (wrongly) that if you are convinced of a different position then you are stupid. They see the changing of one's mind as being weak-minded, when the opposite is often true.

Yes, your changing opinion could be due to a gullible or weak mind. But a change of opinion can also come from inspection, reflection--critical thought.

Our culture of collective thought (or lack of thought) is so bad that we no longer go to war against nations. We are at war against an idea (which is a noun): Terrorism.

And to make things worse, terrorism can be broadly defined, so in theory anybody can now be a terrorist based on a loose set of criteria.

And right now, because I used that word (terror), someone in Utah is reading this.

A person who is standing on a sidewalk, across from an event happening is not looking to engage anyone, they are looking to see if they are the ones engaged. Seems as though the cops were the ones who confronted. One officer only needed to ask if the person caught the incident on camera and may have indicated that they would like information in case of court. The second one had no reason to even approach the person as they should have asked a fellow officer if any information was given.

A lot of people are claiming that the guy was being arrogant or looking for trouble. The fact is that without the officers overstepping their bounds, there never would have been any confrontation. What people are saying about the photog is like saying that a girl was asking to be assaulted because she was wearing tight yoga pants and a jogging bra.

Life here after 9/11 changed because of an overagressive government threatening the rights of it's citizens. The citizens have put up with this overstep, but in some areas are gradually taking back their rights. (exercizing them once again) it is up to the police to know the laws because it is their job on the line when the department gets sued.

And as much as I hate to say it, Jake 'bout summed it up perfectly. In fact, couldn't have said it better myself. Well, okay, maybe if I tried.

MDJAK wrote in post #17005629
And as much as I hate to say it, Jake 'bout summed it up perfectly. In fact, couldn't have said it better myself. Well, okay, maybe if I tried.

Which one was Jake?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17003366
Just to be clear, this is not my first post in this thread, and I am in no way defending the 2nd officer.
I am not taking his side. My post above is concerning the photographer and his actions only. By focusing on the photographers action in my post above, I am not condoning anyone else' actions.

just want to be clear on that.

That said, you all make some good strong points.

which brings me to part of why I felt the desire to post above;

I am not an officer of any kind. I am a photographer, Theatre techy and Educator. But lets just say photographer for this discussion.

Often when I here in the news of a subset of a group behaving poorly, I get angered at the larger group, that they aren't stepping forward to do more to "control" their errant brethren. Politics and religion rules on this forum prevent me from discussing the vast majority of these "groups" even as an example, so I'll use a fictitious example.

If the Cleveland Branch of the Freemasons decides to that Shriners are no good and thus trashes the Shriners temple,. I'd want to see the whole of the Freemason organization coming out publicly not just to give a verbal reprimand to the Cleveland bunch, I'd want them to disbar them, excommunicate, whatever term they use. I'd want the Freemasons to take an active role in deterring other Freemasons from behaving in a similar manner. This sort of lack of action of the parent group angers me every time, and it in my mind = supporting the dangerous faction.

I'd hope that Law Officers would be willing to tell this 2nd Officer he was in the wrong, but I'm not an Officer.

I am a photographer and would like to be part of the voice that condemns, and does not condone by omission, the actions of this photographer. This is part of the club I'm in. So it's up to us as photographers to tell this guy he's doing it wrong IMHO.

Jake is the big and hairy Dude. Above is what he said ^^^^