Photographer Hassled by Police

SlowBlink wrote in post #5873694
I've already covered that. I take the OP as face value and proceed from there. If I was suspicious about a thread, that would be the thread I would avoid. I'm here to network with photogs and share ork.

edit: If someone is out to fool me into thinking their XT is a 1Ds Mark III I could care less if the images are interesting.

The motive behind me starting this thread was I thought other photographer's might find this interesting as I did. The thread has taken turns I didn't expect. But it has been interesting

thebishopp wrote in post #5873951
heh heh, aimed at me was this one? LOL.

Not really you , but.........

A good way is what you suggested, back up and take pictures out of the way... if the officer pursued me and pushed the issue I would have "whipped" out that paper. Of course I wouldn't have been quite so flippant or "my rightsy".

.

There was a time, I would have shoved the "Rights" in his face and told him to read it or shove it someplace else ! But I hope I have gotten wiser over the years. Not that I would just walk away and forget it, there are other ways to handle it. Case in point, when a divorce judge told me I was close to contempt, I should have listened and said "Yes, your Honor", but instead I "stood-up" for myself. So I got to stay all night. lol

I think there's a point there someplace .

Definately an interesting thread.. If you are close to the crime scene then they probably viewed you as a distraction. On your lawn, they police figured you had a motive.
I have been asked a few times NOT to photograph by security guards. Once i Was compliant because she was nice. ( Even though she had no ground to stand on). The other time, I went via the railroad tracks that paralled the property *LOL*

CountryBoy wrote in post #5874134
The motive behind me starting this thread was I thought other photographer's might find this interesting as I did. The thread has taken turns I didn't expect. But it has been interesting




There was a time, I would have shoved the "Rights" in his face and told him to read it or shove it someplace else ! But I hope I have gotten wiser over the years. Not that I would just walk away and forget it, there are other ways to handle it. Case in point, when a divorce judge told me I was close to contempt, I should have listened and said "Yes, your Honor", but instead I "stood-up" for myself. So I got to stay all night. lol

I think there's a point there someplace .

lol, in my younger days I spearheaded a movement in the department for collective bargaining (we were paid less than 19k a year to start and had to give up our raise two years in a row in order to keep our health insurance... lots of other issues too)... boy was that a fight LOL. I also went head to head against some corrupt cops in the department, that got messy and I lost a dog to poisoning over it.

Now that I am older and wiser I try to be a little more tactful LOL. I will agree there is a time and place to fight, you just have to determine when that is and what price you are willing to pay.

Though here is something I written regarding a conversation I was having with someone... granted it is a bit idealogical but I tend to "practice what" I "preach".

Awhile back we were speaking about the recent run of movies detailing epic battles such as the 300, Gladiator, We were Soldiers, etc. etc. etc. and it was mentioned that such tests of courage and mettle no longer existed for the average person.

I disagreed.

Such tests do not always occur on the battlefield, I contend that everyone, throughout life has their own, daily, "Battle of Thermopylae".

This occurs whenever they see something happening and have a chance to do something about it. The choice they make decides whether they are the "Spartans" (those who fought against overwhelming odds for ideals) or the "Persians" (those who merely follow the majority for their own personal gain).
Many of these chances to "do the right thing" are overlooked and go unnoticed by those of questionable character and lesser virtue.

I came across a quote at a Successories a long time ago that I believe sums up the thought:

"Your true character is revealed by the clarity of your convictions, the choices you make, and the promises you keep. Hold strongly to your principles and refuse to follow the currents of convenience. What you say and do defines who you are, and who you are…you are forever."

As far as fault... while primary fault lies with the perpetrator, I believe we share responsibility when we do not question and allow it to continue. After all "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

Southswede wrote in post #5873529
The simple answer is you cannot answer my questions. Because there is not enough information to go on-which has been my point all along.......

I've answered your question, and you're now shying away from your initial statement of what you would have done as the cop in that situation. If you now believe you don't have enough information to go by, then would you agree that your initial reaction and post was extreme? It is that type of knee-jerk, gestapo mentality that many of us question, especially coming from someone entrusted with a badge and a gun. Just don't take out your anger today on some poor citizen of Charleston.

Southswede wrote in post #5872155
What makes you think we don't know the laws we enforce?

Experience.

EORI wrote in post #5874277
I've answered your question, and you're now shying away from your initial statement of what you would have done as the cop in that situation. If you now believe you don't have enough information to go by, then would you agree that your initial reaction and post was extreme? It is that type of knee-jerk, gestapo mentality that many of us question, especially coming from someone entrusted with a badge and a gun. Just don't take out your anger today on some poor citizen of Charleston.

EORI,

You can't win with this guy... no matter how logical or thought out a response is he will always avoid the direct question/answer.

I have dealt with cops like what he appears to be. You should see them testify in court, it's sadly hilarious.

Generally they ignore statements they made and generally challenge you to prove that they made the statement to begin with (usually has to be read back to them and which point they will ignore the reply) and answer in cryptic remarks very much like (and in some cases exactly) what he has done.

This is usually an attempt to sound more knowledgeable then what one is as they now appear "mysterious" and sound like they actual know more than they do. That their intellect is obvoiusly higher than yours and therefore any attempt to come down to your level would be impossible.

The fact is, that in most cases, they can not articulate anything factual or even anything that remotely makes sense.

In person, when their inconsistencies are pointed out, or someone disagrees or does not submit to their authority, they usually become beligerant and if in positions of power, tend to use that power to enforce their views.

thebishopp wrote in post #5874323
EORI, You can't win with this guy... no matter how logical or thought out a response is he will always avoid the direct question/answer.

Yes, I think I'm done with this thread. On to the joys of photography, without being told by someone that I can't take a simple picture. And if I'm taking images of a crime scene, it will be at the extreme tele end of my 100-400IS lens. I wouldn't want to upset an officer with an axe to grind.

nicksan wrote in post #5873588
That's what when you talk about photographer's rights, you need to also consider morality and taste.

I'll ask any one of you. If your family member was seriously hurt/injured due to a robbery, rape, accident, whatever...and obviously you are in a dire state of mind, would you mind photographers snapping away trying to get a "good shot" of the bloody mess?

IMO, you are talking about two completely different things here. A person's rights are their rights. The fact that exercising those rights may be considered by some to be immoral or in bad taste is irrelevant to the conversation concerning the rights themselves. Morality and taste come into play when someone decides on their own whether or not to exercise their rights. In any event, having someone else unlawfully take it upon themselves to make that decision for you is always unacceptable. JMO.

Perhaps, but I think it's inevitable that morality comes into play when talking about such issues because it's such a hazy line.

I would actually be scared to live in a society of ABSOLUTE laws/rights. If these rights were absolute, we would have chaos. I like to think of them as "reasonable" rights. There can never be a perfect system, that's pretty clear.

I agree completely that having someone else make that decision without just cause is unacceptable. But there is always that hazy line...and once again, I would prefer that LEO be able to dedicate their time/attention to the case at hand instead of having to worry about other factors. But I also realize that's not the reality. Humans will always be curious and crowd up on crime/accident scenes, perhaps take a picture or two etc.

And as made obvious, there is a right way and a wrong way of controlling the crowd.

BTBeilke wrote in post #5874488
IMO, you are talking about two completely different things here. A person's rights are their rights. The fact that exercising those rights may be considered by some to be immoral or in bad taste is irrelevant to the conversation concerning the rights themselves. Morality and taste come into play when someone decides on their own whether or not to exercise their rights. In any event, having someone else unlawfully take it upon themselves to make that decision for you is always unacceptable. JMO.

nicksan wrote in post #5874560
Perhaps, but I think it's inevitable that morality comes into play when talking about such issues because it's such a hazy line.

I would actually be scared to live in a society of ABSOLUTE laws/rights.

You have a perverted interpretation of judicial system.

the show "Cops", James Natchwey, Rober Capa, Vietnam journalists, Iraq journalists, the lebanon's "war tourists" photo... all of those pictures produced are morally questionable.

With your standards, you're censoring photographers to only producing pictures of flowers and smiles. Those are your beliefs and if you wouldn't take photos of a horrible crash wreck, that's your choice. But if I see one, I will. And your morals don't, can't and shouldn't stop me if what I'm doing is legal.

Same with abortions. You might believe you're killing a child and never do an abortion. But I might believe that it's better to terminate than have a kid grow up without opportunities it should have. You can't stop me from doing an abortion in that case, short of shooting me, no matter how immoral you think it is.

EDIT: Aristotle's "law is reason free from passion" goes against your logic as well.

nicksan wrote in post #5873588
I'll ask any one of you. If your family member was seriously hurt/injured due to a robbery, rape, accident, whatever...and obviously you are in a dire state of mind, would you mind photographers snapping away trying to get a "good shot" of the bloody mess?

Snap, snap..."Oooh...that's a great angle of the body..."...

A photographer would be my least concern at that point. And no, I wouldn't mind.

Southswede wrote in post #5874710
So a tell me, did you pull off your glasses and slam them on the desk, brfore typing this? ROFLMAO!!!!

This is me in New Orleans:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Shutterbug Doug wrote in post #5872560
If you don't cross the tape your not in violation of anything so where should their concern be? Inside the tape with a victim or perp or outside the scene with a civilian within his legal rights?

That's not how it works, Doug. For most instances, if you stay behind the tape you are fine. But if Cop on the Scene decides they don't want you taking photos, and they tell you to stop, and you don't stop, you can be arrested. And all an officer would need to tell the judge was that in his/her opinion, your taking photos was interfering with official police business. Judges--who don't like being disobeyed either--tend to cut cops wide latitude on stuff like this.

BillMarks wrote in post #5874948
That's not how it works, Doug. For most instances, if you stay behind the tape you are fine. But if Cop on the Scene decides they don't want you taking photos, and they tell you to stop, and you don't stop, you can be arrested. And all an officer would need to tell the judge was that in his/her opinion, your taking photos was interfering with official police business. Judges--who don't like being disobeyed either--tend to cut cops wide latitude on stuff like this.

Depending on what I was shooting and where I was at the time I would inquire as to why I was asked to stop. As long as I was outside the tape I would see no harm in my actions I would want to know the reason. "Because I said so" is not good enough and something you tell a child that doesn't know better.

And as a previous poster said I would want to inquire to a higher authority before I just walked away. Granted if I saw the officer becoming irate at my "questioning his authority" I would probably just walk and file a complaint to the department on the matter. But once again, if I know I am within my legal boundaries and rights I would not just walk away at the first reaction of an officer trying to "chase me away".

As for the moral aspect some talked about. Morality is a personal issue, some can shoot bloody bodies all day long and feel no remorse or emotional connection. I myself can't do such in good conscious outside of a wartime/terror situation. That and I know I wouldn't want any of my family captured on film, digital or otherwise, if in that situation.

Ok everyone.... Group hug!