Photographer Hassled by Police

mattograph wrote in post #5872700
*smacks head*

What was that for, boss?

LOL, I love Mark Harmon, he makes that show so entertaining. Law and Order was/is just too stiff for my enjoyment.

Shutterbug Doug wrote in post #5872772
LOL, I love Mark Harmon, he makes that show so entertaining. Law and Order was/is just too stiff for my enjoyment.

A classic celebrity deathmatch that wasn't:

Sam Waterston vs. Mark Harmon

I had to Google Sam Waterston.....therein lies my lack of interest and knowledge of that show. LOL

Sam Waterston, from Old glory Insurance.. The only life insurance company to provide full coverage against the leading killer of the elderly: robot attacks.

Is it safe to declare this thread officially hijacked?

And if so, is someone gonna call the cops?

"Hey officer, I hear doug has pictures of your wife nude on his camera. You might wanna confiscate it!"

Doesn't seem like SS is up to answering the questions put to him, only ridiculing or patronizing members. It's a shame since by the sounds of it he has a wealth of legal knowledge, but is unwilling to share it.

Adrenaline junkies or bullies join the force and end up being the topics of threads like this. It's human nature and you'll find those personalities in every occupation. Unfortunately you also find an us versus them attitude which seems to be present in this thread as well.

Police aren't trained in law they're trained in investigation and enforcement. Six months of Police training doesn't give you a law degree. The idea that if you're in the line of sight of an LEO makes you under his care is absurd.

If we're going to apply the same rigid rules of disclosure in every thread we wouldn't be able to answer any questions because we wouldn't have enough information. We take the OP at face value and go from there.

Given the same situation I'd do what I've been told by the Lawyers in the family. Exercise your right to silence and ask for access to an attorney who will advise you on how to proceed.

EORI wrote in post #5872724
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?

Just because YOU say something in unreasonable, does not make it so. We do not have enough information to determine if the LEO's violated anyone Civil Rights, now do we?

As for the First Amendment, these rights, like all others, are NOT absolute rights. It is just that simple.

Common law false arrest? LOL! Exactly WHAT do you base this on? LOL!

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.......

SlowBlink wrote in post #5873486
If we're going to apply the same rigid rules of disclosure in every thread we wouldn't be able to answer any questions because we wouldn't have enough information. We take the OP at face value and go from there.

I don't agree. If I posted a thread titled "Just took my first shots with the 5D Mark II" and posts some pics without EXIF data, would you accept without question that they came from a 5D Mark II?

mattograph wrote in post #5873551
I don't agree. If I posted a thread titled "Just took my first shots with the 5D Mark II" and posts some pics without EXIF data, would you accept without question that they came from a 5D Mark II?

On the other side, would you accept the EXIF data without question? Most people would answer "Yes." Why?

SlowBlink wrote in post #5873486
Doesn't seem like SS is up to answering the questions put to him, only ridiculing or patronizing members. It's a shame since by the sounds of it he has a wealth of legal knowledge, but is unwilling to share it.

Adrenaline junkies or bullies join the force and end up being the topics of threads like this. It's human nature and you'll find those personalities in every occupation. Unfortunately you also find an us versus them attitude which seems to be present in this thread as well.

Police aren't trained in law they're trained in investigation and enforcement. Six months of Police training doesn't give you a law degree. The idea that if you're in the line of sight of an LEO makes you under his care is absurd.

If we're going to apply the same rigid rules of disclosure in every thread we wouldn't be able to answer any questions because we wouldn't have enough information. We take the OP at face value and go from there.

Given the same situation I'd do what I've been told by the Lawyers in the family. Exercise your right to silence and ask for access to an attorney who will advise you on how to proceed.

Sorry, I just came back (I have to work, you know violating someones civil rights and all).

Exactly what question would you like answered?

If i was a a witness for the defence, no. Since it's a forum where we share our work and critique others I see no reason not to. Should I check the exif on all images to make sure the photographer isn't trying to pull one over on me? I'm not that suspicious by nature.

TheSonofDarwin wrote in post #5873560
On the other side, would you accept the EXIF data without question?

I wouldn't. That's my point.

50% of the time when I am absolutely, positively 100% certain of something, I am wrong. I don't assume that anyone else has a better hit rate.

mattograph wrote in post #5873575
I wouldn't. That's my point.

50% of the time when I am absolutely, positively 100% certain of something, I am wrong. I don't assume that anyone else has a better hit rate.

Right, but some people might suggest we should take EXIF data as right, or factual on default. There's no more reason to do that than trust the person's word of what settings/gear he used.

And this analogy is starting to get weird.

Yep, but I think the vast majority of people feel they are absolute rights.
It's simple to figure out if they were, we would actually have total chaos here.

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?

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

I gotta tell you, that would piss me off and I would actually appreciate it if the LEO's would prevent them from taking photographs and commend them for being compassionate.

Now obviously, there is a right way and a wrong way of going about controlling the crowd and photogs and I am not sure what exactly happened in the article the OP posted, but this sort of thing needs to be considered.

Southswede wrote in post #5873529
Just because YOU say something in unreasonable, does not make it so. We do not have enough information to determine if the LEO's violated anyone Civil Rights, now do we?

As for the First Amendment, these rights, like all others, are NOT absolute rights. It is just that simple.

Common law false arrest? LOL! Exactly WHAT do you base this on? LOL!

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.......

SlowBlink wrote in post #5873574
If i was a a witness for the defence, no. Since it's a forum where we share our work and critique others I see no reason not to. Should I check the exif on all images to make sure the photographer isn't trying to pull one over on me? I'm not that suspicious by nature.

Sure you are. If you weren't suspicious, this thread would not have even caught your attention. You would have passed it by with a laugh and moved on to a C&C of some fireworks shots.