Photographer Hassled by Police

Shutterbug Doug wrote in post #5872393
Amazing how your reasoning of "common sense" goes hand in hand with blind conformity.
Hey, I might have backed off as well but that doesn't make the troopers actions correct do they? The arrested togs civil rights, as the story goes, were violated would you not agree?

Where/when have I said anything about "blind conformity"?

mattograph wrote in post #5872465
[offtopic]

That was interesting.

My understanding has always been that a Federal Republic features a central leader elected by a number of established, sovereign states (electoral college). A representative republic is similar, yet the bodies of people represented need not be, and are most likely not, organized by the sovereignty.

So, we could say the US is organized as Federal Republic, and our states and localities are organized as a representative republic.

How's that for having it both ways!

[/offtopic]

LOL! I never looked at it that way! And like most things, it becomes ahem clear!

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

I think people would rather assume ignorance of certain laws rather than a blatant disregard for them.

nicksan wrote in post #5871904
Again, frankly, I would rather them dedicate 100% of their time to the case at hand, and not have to worry about how to treat photographer and his/her "rights".

True. Then again, they are intentionally worrying about the photography and his/her "rights" rather than going about their business in the case at hand.

Find law breakers, don't make them.

SlowBlink wrote in post #5868906
First of all he wasn't at a crime scene, he was on his property. The crime didn't occur on his property so in no way would it be seen as such. That`s one of the benefits private property includes, the freedom to move about doing anything you want as long as it`s legal.

I think for sake of argument we can take the OP for his word unless you have an inherent mistrust of school teachers. I`ve never heard of gangs of 6th grade teachers spraying the streets with teflon coated ammunition flashing gang signs.

Southswede: How about you do explain rather than patronize. I`m sure you`ll find many people in the thread with more than enough life experience and post secondary education to grasp it.

I'm not sure what is so difficult about this concept...

When a crime or accident has occurred, THE POLICE are in charge. Period. This is an important part of civil protection. When floods threated neighborhoods, people can be forcefully, and legally removed from their private property by the police.

THE POLICE determine the limits of the crime or accident scene. Crime/accident scenes are little, legal, totalitarian regimes run by THE POLICE. It is through their total power that THE POLICE help ensure that the bad guy doesn't get away and/or the accident victim doesn't die. They can't be tied up with every person looking to take a constitutional stand.

Southswede wrote in post #5872473
Where/when have I said anything about "blind conformity"?

From your obvious back slapping those that say they would walk away when asked by the cops to do so.
I guess it kinda pisses you LEO's off when the genpop shows that they will stand up for their rights and not be bullied by some guy with a gun and a badge. All that weaponry and authority overrun by a silly civil liberty. I guess it sucks getting knocked back down to the "human" level, huh?

BillMarks wrote in post #5872522
I'm not sure what is so difficult about this concept...

When a crime or accident has occurred, THE POLICE are in charge. Period. This is an important part of civil protection. When floods threated neighborhoods, people can be forcefully, and legally removed from their private property by the police.

THE POLICE determine the limits of the crime or accident scene. Crime/accident scenes are little, legal, totalitarian regimes run by THE POLICE. It is through their total power that THE POLICE help ensure that the bad guy doesn't get away and/or the accident victim doesn't die. They can't be tied up with every person looking to take a constitutional stand.

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?

Shutterbug Doug wrote in post #5872543
From your obvious back slapping those that say they would walk away when asked by the cops to do so.
I guess it kinda pisses you LEO's off when the genpop shows that they will stand up for their rights and not be bullied by some guy with a gun and a badge. All that weaponry and authority overrun by a silly civil liberty. I guess it sucks getting knocked back down to the "human" level, huh?

ROLFMAO!

If you want to be more accurate I'll take republic instead of democracy although both terms are correct here in the US.

Don't get me wrong, I love LEOs. There were several places in town I wouldn't have gone in without one when I was still working EMS. However, when I'm asked to stop taking photographs of something that I have every right to photograph I'm not just going to say "yes sir" and move on. LEOs need to know the limits of their power and when they're going to cross into the realm of violating constitutional rights. As I was once told by an officer; "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" -- that applies to LEOs as well.

If you're taking photos of a crime scene and you're on public land (or your own, or your neighbors...), not endangering or interfering, and outside the incident circle then the officers on scene need to get back to business and leave you alone - it isn't a hard concept to grasp or follow.

edited to add:
I would like to take a moment to say that almost all LEOs I've spoken with over these types of issues realized and respected my rights after a brief and polite discussion. Now security guards and similar (like MBTA officers here in MA) are another matter.

LEO + Perp + Genpop=Too Much "Law and Order"

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?

Both. Whether you are on this side, or that side of a line (or tape) you are still on the scene. They need to watch everyone. You being there takes attention from where is should, or needs to be and places it on "you".

mattograph wrote in post #5872667
LEO + Perp + Genpop=Too Much "Law and Order"

Watched the show once and it did nothing for me....lol
NCIS is a different story!

Shutterbug Doug wrote in post #5872694
Watched the show once and it did nothing for me....lol
NCIS is a different story!

*smacks head*

What was that for, boss?

Southswede wrote in post #5871937
By the way, are you going to answer my earlier post question? You know, what Constitustional rights were violated and by who/whom?

You're a cop, so you presumably know what the Bill of Rights are, or am I being generous?

Let's start with Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure.
First Amendment freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.
Common law false arrest.

As for the whom, I was responding to your first person post of what you would do in your capacity as a cop, or did you forget that too?

Southswede wrote in post #5872674
Both. Whether you are on this side, or that side of a line (or tape) you are still on the scene. They need to watch everyone. You being there takes attention from where is should, or needs to be and places it on "you".

Sounds to me like they need to set up a wider area then if this is the case. Is it an accident scene or a golf course? Just chase everyone off the entire block or 1/4 mile radius!
Look, if I'm outside the lines my legal activities shouldn't distract them from their obligations or duties. Do your job and I'll do mine and it'll all work out fine.
I'm certain when working a scene there are enough officers in attendance to assign one or two to line duty. This should allow the others on scene to work as required without distractions, correct? Officer Joe on line duty while Officers Bob, Mike and Brenda work the scene? Is this not how it (should) work?

Southswede wrote in post #5871908
Police are not the exception to my observation. Where did I say that? I have no problem with the trust, but verify way of thinking. PLease show me where I have EVER defended the "scofflaws" among my ranks! (You cannot, because I have NEVER done so.)

Re-read all of your statements in this thread. It's all about how citizens need to blindly obey what a police officer says. Implicit in your statements is the presumption that a police officer is always right. Your original statement to which I was responding described first hand what a scofflaw officer would do. By defending your position, you have defended the scofflaw.