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?

 
moose10101
registered smartass
1,685 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 251
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Mar 01, 2012 15:19 |  #121

Jimbers wrote in post #13999142 (external link)
in addition, i can't help but think this whole thing was some kind of very lame publicity stunt. seems a bit staged for the very purpose of arousing police attention, knowing that the police would probably go about their investigation in a slightly over-the-top manner.

Maybe the officer can plead "entrapment", just like people do when they try to buy drugs from an undercover cop.

Jimbers wrote in post #13999142 (external link)
seriously, in any encounter i have had with the police, they will always and eventually ask for id. best just to comply, lest suspicion and ill-will grow....

Seriously, no thanks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Mar 01, 2012 15:20 |  #122

Well, I went back and watched the video again. The first officer obviously didn't know what a time-lapse was, but rather than just listen and observe, he pressed a line of questioning that implied that the photog was doing something questionable. Then he asked for the ID, as if that would do any good, but at that point the photog, who had not been acting like a "jerk" but had rather been trying to explain what a time-lapse was, told the officer that he had the right to not turn over his ID or even to not answer questions. He didn't say it obnoxiously, but he did say it rather than just turn over his ID.

But then, when the photog explained that he was not required to turn over his ID the officer claimed that he did have to turn it over. The cop was evidently ignorant about the law, and acted on the ignorance by saying the ID was required. The obvious threat there is that of arrest, which would have been unlawful. But by then he was already "breaking the rules" by insisting on the ID. The photog did go ahead and surrender his ID, but then the second officer came along and insist that it was unlawful to video the confrontation and that they would arrest the photog if he didn't turn off the camera. Well, from what I understand, that was also a breach of protocal.

So, whatever you think about the actions of the photog, the officers did cross lines, first in demanding ID improperly, second in pushing questioning about something they were obviously ignorant about, and third in threatening to arrest the guy for shooting the video about the confrontation.

So, those who say they "side with the cops" are, well, indicating that it's OK to break the rules? When the cops have the guns "breaking the rules" is for them breaking the law, is it not?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,685 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 251
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Mar 01, 2012 15:23 |  #123

Jaymz wrote in post #13999011 (external link)
I have two very good friends, family like friends, that are local officers. I have been on many rides with them and after seeing the majority of the crap they have to deal with just because they are officers I can understand the attitude that seems to prevail. Doesn't make it right but I can understand where it...

I've done rides with some very experienced officers, and never once did I see them try to increase the tension in a situation, because they're trained to do exactly the opposite. They know that enough crap will come their way without looking for it.

And as several of them told me, Rule #1 for minimizing stress levels is to actually know the law and not step beyond it, not even asking for ID when it isn't warranted.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Markk9
Senior Member
284 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Greensboro, NC
     
Mar 01, 2012 15:24 |  #124

Again most would rather be sheeple then defend their rights, because defending your right is to hard.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimbers
Senior Member
333 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Mar 01, 2012 15:34 |  #125
bannedPermanent ban

Markk9 wrote in post #13999714 (external link)
Again most would rather be sheeple then defend their rights, because defending your right is to hard.

not hard, but certainly a pointless waste of good will.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Markk9
Senior Member
284 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Greensboro, NC
     
Mar 01, 2012 15:35 |  #126

Jimbers wrote in post #13999877 (external link)
not hard, but certainly a pointless waste of good will.

WOW...............it's pointless and a waste to stand up for your rights!


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimbers
Senior Member
333 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Mar 01, 2012 15:46 |  #127
bannedPermanent ban

moose10101 wrote in post #13999651 (external link)
Maybe the officer can plead "entrapment", just like people do when they try to buy drugs from an undercover cop.

Seriously, no thanks.

http://www.aclunc.org …rights_and_the_​police.pdf (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cacawcacaw
Goldmember
Avatar
2,862 posts
Likes: 19
Joined May 2010
Location: Ventura, California
     
Mar 01, 2012 17:03 |  #128

moose10101 wrote in post #13999698 (external link)
I've done rides with some very experienced officers, and never once did I see them try to increase the tension in a situation, because they're trained to do exactly the opposite. ...

Unfortunately, people tend to quickly categorize others. All obnoxious photographers aren't bad people and all well-intentioned policemen aren't good officers.

The policeman was just doing a crummy job in carrying out his primary responsibility. (And the photographer was doing a fairly poor job of carrying out his assumed goal; to get the shot and get out of there without making waves.)


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
twomill
Member
Avatar
45 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Mar 01, 2012 18:59 |  #129

If a citizen calls about something suspicious going on in the late nite, on a bridge that crosses a public highway, right above where cars are traveling directly below; then the officers not only have a right to ID the activity and the people involved, but they have an obligation to check it out.
In fact, the officers can react on what they see as suspicious activity and check out what is going own even if it is legal. So, if the officers are acting on a reported suspicious activity, they are giving a lawful request/command to show ID.
If the ACLU disagrees with this then they are wrong.


http://flickr.com/jtop​pa (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Markk9
Senior Member
284 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Greensboro, NC
     
Mar 01, 2012 19:10 |  #130

twomill wrote in post #14001547 (external link)
If a citizen calls about something suspicious going on in the late nite, on a bridge that crosses a public highway, right above where cars are traveling directly below; then the officers not only have a right to ID the activity and the people involved, but they have an obligation to check it out.
In fact, the officers can react on what they see as suspicious activity and check out what is going own even if it is legal. So, if the officers are acting on a reported suspicious activity, they are giving a lawful request/command to show ID.
If the ACLU disagrees with this then they are wrong.

More of the sheeple flock!!!!


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,685 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 251
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Mar 01, 2012 19:25 |  #131

twomill wrote in post #14001547 (external link)
If a citizen calls about something suspicious going on in the late nite, on a bridge that crosses a public highway, right above where cars are traveling directly below; then the officers not only have a right to ID the activity and the people involved, but they have an obligation to check it out.
In fact, the officers can react on what they see as suspicious activity and check out what is going own even if it is legal. So, if the officers are acting on a reported suspicious activity, they are giving a lawful request/command to show ID.
If the ACLU disagrees with this then they are wrong.

Let's see, I can believe a group of experienced Constitutional lawyers, or I can believe GWC (guy with computer). Easy choice.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cacawcacaw
Goldmember
Avatar
2,862 posts
Likes: 19
Joined May 2010
Location: Ventura, California
     
Mar 01, 2012 19:37 |  #132

twomill wrote in post #14001547 (external link)
If a citizen calls about something suspicious going on in the late nite, on a bridge that crosses a public highway, right above where cars are traveling directly below; then the officers not only have a right to ID the activity and the people involved, but they have an obligation to check it out.
In fact, the officers can react on what they see as suspicious activity and check out what is going own even if it is legal. So, if the officers are acting on a reported suspicious activity, they are giving a lawful request/command to show ID.
If the ACLU disagrees with this then they are wrong.

But are any of your "if" statements true? I'm not very well versed on the incident but it sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions. And, what do you base your "then" statements on? Sounds like you're just using horse sense and stating it as legal fact and then using your erroneous conclusion as a criticism of the ACLU.

It's my understanding that police officers do have a duty to investigate suspicious activity. Unless they were looking for someone matching the subject's description, there was no reason to demand his ID. There's a reason for this; our long history of harassing people because they were from the wrong part of town or because they had the wrong last name. Freedom from this type of harassment is one of our basic rights under the constitution and the ACLU's mission is to protect our basic constitutional rights, even when it's not convenient for those in power.

"So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy." -- ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin

Baldwin sounds like one of those tea-partiers!


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
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Mar 01, 2012 21:30 |  #133

Markk9 wrote in post #13999714 (external link)
Again most would rather be sheeple then defend their rights, because defending your right is to hard.

I'm going to call you on that.

This entire country is set up to make sure we don't have to be afraid of our own government.

So, while you may be able to cite an abuse or two, an imperfection here or there, there is no vast evidence of a conspiracy to deprive anyone of any right.

And, we're talking about people in government who can't manage their way out of a paper bag, so there's simply no capability to enact a rights grab even if they wanted to.

The game is much more simple. They're just greedy, maybe a bit lazy.... not all, but many. They're just not interested in taking anything from anyone, because, gee, that's hard work.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nmcgrew
Senior Member
874 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Mill Creek, WA
     
Mar 01, 2012 21:40 |  #134

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Sigh...such great things mean nothing if people aren't willing to be inconvenienced in order to preserve liberty. Also, if you don't know what I quoted above, you're either not from the United States or you're ignorant.

Things Police like to believe, but aren't true-
1. You can't take pictures because of the Patriot Act.
2. You can't film or record them because of wire-tap laws *
3. A refusal to consent to a search is reasonable suspicion to do so anyway
4. You must comply with everything a police officer orders you to do

*In regards to #2, in some states this is true! Crazy! Anyone that has read the Federalist Papers understands the founding fathers understood that in order to have a free society, those representing the government MUST be watched and reported about. I still don't fully comprehend how the wire-tap deal stands up against the 1st Amendment. Public place, public servant = no reasonable expectation of privacy and freedom of the press should prevail. Yet, they apply a state law to stomp on a cornerstone in the foundation of our society.

Anyway, enough with that. How this should have gone down if the police were trained well.

"Excuse me sir, but I was wondering what you're doing out here tonight?"
"I'm taking photographs, Officer." *not a crime*
"Can I ask of what?"
"Of the traffic. I'm going to make a time-lapse film." *still not a crime*
"For what purpose?"
"Because I can. It's my hobby/art/profession/e​tc" *this is the point that it's been determined no crime or suspicious activity is taking place*
"Can I see your ID?"
"I'd like to reserve my right to refuse to show you my ID."
"Ok, may I have your name?"
"No, Officer. Am I under arrest or am I free to go?"
"You're free to go."

A man committing no crime can still be considered suspicious and can be questioned to determine if a crime is taking place. A man standing on an over-pass in the middle of the night can and should be considered suspicious. Once it was obvious he was simply taking pictures there is no longer any reasonable suspicion. That's where the police took a wrong turn and then poorly handled the situation when the photographer exercised his rights.

Granted, it could have gone smoother if he had been compliant, but that's not really the point here.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nmcgrew
Senior Member
874 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Mill Creek, WA
     
Mar 01, 2012 21:47 |  #135

S.Horton wrote in post #14002439 (external link)
I'm going to call you on that.

This entire country is set up to make sure we don't have to be afraid of our own government.

So, while you may be able to cite an abuse or two, an imperfection here or there, there is no vast evidence of a conspiracy to deprive anyone of any right.

And, we're talking about people in government who can't manage their way out of a paper bag, so there's simply no capability to enact a rights grab even if they wanted to.

The game is much more simple. They're just greedy, maybe a bit lazy.... not all, but many. They're just not interested in taking anything from anyone, because, gee, that's hard work.

You should understand that the erosion of rights is supposed to make it easier for the police/government to do their jobs because that darn constitution makes it too hard. There are legitimate reasons there are limitations placed on the government. It's to benefit the innocent even if it also helps the criminal.




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

15,875 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 AlanJr
858 guests, 286 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.