Photographer Hassled by Police

Glad I saw this. There was a thread the other day that was along the same lines. And this thread helps express a point I was trying to make. Police are not above the law nor do they have the power to take away our rights.

However, I hate confrontations sometimes, so I would just have deleted them and recovered them later.

I've heard the same rhetoric all of my life, luckily I had people around me in law set me straight. Depending on where you live a police officers job is no more and sometimes less dangerous than many other fields of employment. The forest industry in my province claimed the lives of more people in the last year than policing has claimed in a decade.

Most police abuse at crime scenes is a result of adrenaline and getting there to late to use it for something physical. 99% of police work is mundane assembly line repetition and paperwork. Boredom and a huge jolt of adrenaline don't always make the most pleasant result but it's the officers responsibility to control his actions. This is covered in training along with the other psychological factors of the job.

I had a grandfather and Father who fought two world wars and came home with shell shock for those civil rights. I'll be dead before I let some grade 12 graduate high on adrenaline a coffee abuse them.

When police are good at their job, they're life savers. When they're abusing their position they're redundant and should be either reprimanded or fired. Just like any other profession. IMO that is.

Every devil needs his advocate, so.....

I encourage everyone to remember that there are two sides to every story. While there is certainly no excuse for police officers to behave in the manner that they were described to have behaved, there is also nothing to corroborate the gentleman's story either.

A traditional "he said / she said" scenario.

Indeed, he even contradicts himself in the story (or at least appears to based on the way the story is edited.) He describes himself as having "locked his camera in his scooter". Yet when he gets out of the police cruiser, not only is he no longer handcuffed, but has the camera right there in his hands.

He could be telling the god's honest truth, or he could be full of crap. Not enough here to go on to decide, and certainly not enough to indict the law enforcement profession as a bunch of "grade 12 graduates high on adrenaline".

In fact I think there's enough cases where you can actually make stereotypes for both cops and photogs.

Cops on power trips, and over-zealous photogs who feel it is within their right to shoot anything, anywhere, anytime, regardless of morality or taste. They'll just push the whole "I have the right to do so" card on you.

mattograph wrote in post #5860292
Every devil needs his advocate, so.....

I encourage everyone to remember that there are two sides to every story. While there is certainly no excuse for police officers to behave in the manner that they were described to have behaved, there is also nothing to corroborate the gentleman's story either.

A traditional "he said / she said" scenario.

Indeed, he even contradicts himself in the story (or at least appears to based on the way the story is edited.) He describes himself as having "locked his camera in his scooter". Yet when he gets out of the police cruiser, not only is he no longer handcuffed, but has the camera right there in his hands.

He could be telling the god's honest truth, or he could be full of crap. Not enough here to go on to decide, and certainly not enough to indict the law enforcement profession as a bunch of "grade 12 graduates high on adrenaline".

I don't believe I indicted the entire profession, just the individual members who can't control their actions. I don't believe the time line in the video is meant to give an accurate representation of the events either. It certainly wasn't presented that way imo.

SlowBlink wrote in post #5860316
I don't believe I indicted the entire profession, just the individual members who can't control their actions. I don't believe the time line in the video is meant to give an accurate representation of the events either. It certainly wasn't presented that way imo.

Oh, I agree. In fact, from my limited PJ experiences, the shot of him getting out of the cop car with the camera feels very staged, although TV journalists would never stage anything, would they?

Just kidding...... As a former public servant (firefighter / EMT) I have a soft spot for the mostly excellent job folks like our police do, and just hate to see anyone want to toss the baby out with the bath water -- and not suggesting that was your specific implication. The thread just had that "tone".

Agreed, the tone was a little harsh. I'm the first to admit I couldn't do the job. I'd be hitting the bottle after the first kid mangled in a car wreck. I think the human resources inside the profession is probably as responsible as anything. Counselling and a proper de stressing method should be a requisite for the sake of the members mental health. Like i said the good ones are life savers, nothing short.

nicksan wrote in post #5858564
I am sure the Police Office was in a happy go lucky mood after chasing a crazy dude in a SUV going 120 mph, as was stated in the article.

Just what he needed...some "Professional" photog and school teacher educated on his rights to refuse to listen to his requests.

I am not sure how I feel about this. While I agree that the officer in question went over the line, he did ask the photog to delete the photos, right or wrong. He was probably overreacting, sure, but he was just done with a 120mph chase and perhaps he has no patience dealing with some pain in the arse photog.

No excuses in this matter (and I'm an ex-cop). Saw a lot of guys who could be described in this manner.

They get a gun and a badge and all of a sudden they think they are wyatt earp and everyone else is a cowboy. Or even worse, Judge Dred "I AM THE LAW!!!!".

They forget they are supposed to enforce the laws and not make them up.

I carry several copies of the "photographer's rights" just to be on the safe side. Won't help much if the officer has gone "****" but it would be helpful later in the civil suit.

SlowBlink wrote in post #5860419
Agreed, the tone was a little harsh. I'm the first to admit I couldn't do the job. I'd be hitting the bottle after the first kid mangled in a car wreck. I think the human resources inside the profession is probably as responsible as anything. Counselling and a proper de stressing method should be a requisite for the sake of the members mental health. Like i said the good ones are life savers, nothing short.

Counseling usually is. My first accident fatality (5 year old squished by a truck and I was the first on the scene) required a mandatory counseling session for every officer who was there.

thebishopp wrote in post #5860709
I carry several copies of the "photographer's rights" just to be on the safe side. Won't help much if the officer has gone "****" but it would be helpful later in the civil suit.

For those of you who have not seen it, it's here.
Or one version anyway.

having worked as a firefighter, I will agree that adrenaline is always a factor, so is the fact that reporters and cameras are never a welcome addition to any uncontrolled situation. But a public servant can't let personal feelings circumvent the law, or enforce their own personal agenda. the policeman in question had better be able to justify his actions- maybe there was an undercover on site he was trying to protect, maybe the chase was part of an ongoing investigation- If he can't, he deserves to be sat down. Never underestimate the ability of enlightened citizens to uphold their own civil rights, this officer may be about to learn this lesson the hard way.

He did say it was one of the State Troppers that lost his cool. I wonder the age of that trooper. Because i've noticed the younger ones have an attitude, while the older ones can handle things a lot smoother. As least around here anyway.

I'll keep an eye on this. But I would bet that it is swept under the rug, like usual

What the cops should have done is taken both his scooter and camera as evidence..............​.I know it would have taken me MONTHS to figure out where the film was. Then another 2-3 months just to figure out what that pesky little card was all about. But I WOULD have been able to determine his scooter had no value to the investigation and returned it.

Camera? He might have gotten it back within the next year, give or take.........

birdfromboat wrote in post #5862339
having worked as a firefighter, I will agree that adrenaline is always a factor, so is the fact that reporters and cameras are never a welcome addition to any uncontrolled situation. But a public servant can't let personal feelings circumvent the law, or enforce their own personal agenda. the policeman in question had better be able to justify his actions- maybe there was an undercover on site he was trying to protect, maybe the chase was part of an ongoing investigation- If he can't, he deserves to be sat down. Never underestimate the ability of enlightened citizens to uphold their own civil rights, this officer may be about to learn this lesson the hard way.

I know you are supporting rights. But plainly, there is no justification that will hold water. Justify their actions? To whom? Sounds like personal problems. There is a chaplain and a shrink on the force the guy can talk to.

The photographing of that scene is guaranteed by the constitution - freedom of speech, and right to a free press. Additionally, there is the question of the fourth amendment - illegal search and seizure.

I would like to know the charge - failure to follow a "lawful order" - BUZZ! Wrong answer. Interfering with a crime scene? BUZZ! Wrong answer. The cop could have instructed him to move back and post a new perimeter. The camera and/or film/media cannot be seized (or in this case - instructed to delete) without a warrant.

I wonder what false imprisonment and violation of constitutional rights is "worth". The story stated that other cops from different forces were also on scene - and either they did not know, or didn't want to dress the cop down in front of others - or maybe it was "Blue Line Syndrome". Any way you slice it, the cop in this case is in deep doo-doo. And the others, culpable.

fxk wrote in post #5864170
I know you are supporting rights. But plainly, there is no justification that will hold water. Justify their actions? To whom? Sounds like personal problems. There is a chaplain and a shrink on the force the guy can talk to.

The photographing of that scene is guaranteed by the constitution - freedom of speech, and right to a free press. Additionally, there is the question of the fourth amendment - illegal search and seizure.

I would like to know the charge - failure to follow a "lawful order" - BUZZ! Wrong answer. Interfering with a crime scene? BUZZ! Wrong answer. The cop could have instructed him to move back and post a new perimeter. The camera and/or film/media cannot be seized (or in this case - instructed to delete) without a warrant.

I wonder what false imprisonment and violation of constitutional rights is "worth". The story stated that other cops from different forces were also on scene - and either they did not know, or didn't want to dress the cop down in front of others - or maybe it was "Blue Line Syndrome". Any way you slice it, the cop in this case is in deep doo-doo. And the others, culpable.

You based this on that article alone, or do you have additional information?

Having over 20 years experience as a cop, I can tell you this: there are three sides to every story. His side, the cops side and some where in the middle, is the truth. You don't even have ALL of his side in this story......