Photographer Hassled by Police

I don't visit threads because |I'm suspicious. I visit when I think I might have something to add or enjoy the subject matter. Having Jurists in the family I thought it might be the former. Your assumption that you know my emotions or motive from Kentucky in front of your computer is a little strange.

Southswede wrote in post #5873562
Sorry, I just came back (I have to work, you know violating someones civil rights and all).

Exactly what question would you like answered?

You've just given me all I need to know on your powers of observation. Never mind.

See, I can play the game too.

SlowBlink wrote in post #5873634
I don't visit threads because |I'm suspicious. I visit when I think I might have something to add or enjoy the subject matter. Having Jurists in the family I thought it might be the former. Your assumption that you know my emotions or motive from Kentucky in front of your computer is a little strange.

Not talking about your motive. Just about human nature. I don't agree with you with regards to the "facts", but I am not challenging you -- just your point of view.

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 work.

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.

SlowBlink wrote in post #5873574
I'm not that suspicious by nature.

I wasn't speaking of suspicion specifically on how it relates to a thread, but just suspicion in general. I used a very poor analogy.

Let me try this. Would you agree or disagree that the author of the following is suspicious -- in this case, of the credibility and ability of law enforcement?

"You can stand on your front lawn and charge for popcorn without fear of harassment as long as you're not physically interfering with their progress. I've gotten shots of a dead body in the park across the street because I was walking through as the police and ambulance arrived. The police didn't ask me what I was doing or why because it's a public space accessible to anyone. Does it matter why I take shots of the police doing their job? No, I can do it all day long if I chose and if it makes them nervous that reflects on them, not me.

The idea that it's a different world and much more dangerous is a fabrication that's repeated constantly in the media. Many crimes are declining in the US and Canada but when you see the press conferences by politicians and police you'd think Revelations is upon us. It's the new style of getting a bigger budget.

Fear for sale and Sell by Fear.

I grew up listening to two lawyers argue civil rights every thanksgiving/Christmas​/Easter/Birthdays. Best advice. Never ask a cop about the law, they know nothing. They know enforcement and at best they're cloudy on that. Never get into a debate with a cop, even if you're right you'll lose....I never listened to them but I know how to pick battles."

Southswede wrote in post #5871068
I don't know. I wasn't there, so I have no way of knowing what the scene was like or anything else. I can, like everyone else, only GUESS.

Here is what I have learned with over 20 years experience: 10% of society cause 90% of societies problems. People simply assume we are all the same. We are not. The 90% are decent, hard working up-standing people. They should NEVER think the 10% are just like them-they are not.

I got back into photography, because I started seeing society, as a whole, like the 10%. I needed to get a broader scope of the bigger picture. Photorgaphers like us, are the 90%. This has restored my faith in people as a whole.

What you have to remember, is that the LEO's have a job to do. Let them do it. If they ask you not to take pictures, don't. I isn't that hard of a concept...is it?

While I agree with the first part of the post we once again come to the issue with the last part of your post.

That statement is a load of crap and you know it.

mattograph wrote in post #5873268
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!"

Not on my camera anymore!

If I took that statement alone on face value I'd say the author is cynical. If I read his previous posts I might have a better understanding of his overall view.

Statements such as: When police are good at their job they're life savers, nothing short.

If I took all the ridicule and patronizing insults from an author in this thread I could give the impression he was smug and antagonistic. He's most likely a good PO, the odds are in our favour. But we're not addressing a good cop, just what appears to be at face value a bad one.

Southswede wrote in post #5870941
ROFLMAO!!! I just love post like this, along with threads like this one!! It really doesn't seem to matter what message board topics like this come up on. The posters are all the same. They comment on a small part of a total situation, thinking they know all that happened. When it is pointed out that we know next to nothing, based on the source (the short, biased article in this case) they make comments like yours.

The anonymity of the internet is fun to watch! People with an agenda are exposed rather quickly. In spite of all the hand wringing, declaration of violated rights, false bravado about what they would have done, in the end they are the same: the call the cops with their problems, or follow what they are asked to do an any particular scene.....

But these threads are a lot of fun. I never take then serious, because they are not to be taken serious.

You are quick to throw out statements like these.... you will quickly find out that I am not one to hide behind anonymous internet aliases.

My name is Don Swain, originally from Hawaii. I enlisted during desert storm and wound up at Ft. Knox KY with the 1/16th Cavalary. Upon my end of active service I became a police officer in Kentucky. I am now a licensed and insured P.I. here in Indiana. I have been doing private contractor work here in the states for the past 4 years (we were in Lousiana after Katrina and Rita) and I also occasionaly go out on strike details as a camera man (when I am bored enough).

How about you?

You obviously don't realize that you are not talking to some "civilian". I have dealt with my share of domestics (beaten spouses, children), fatality accidents, drug dealers, dead kids, dead adults, assaults, robberies, burglaries, dui's, rapes, etc. etc. etc. I have also seen what you call the 10 percent, though personally I think it's a lot higher than that.

I think it's put up or shut up time.

I am normaly very pro-police and normally find myself on the other side of this argument but it has gone beyond the actual topic.

What we have here is you, a self-professed 20 year veteran of a law enforcement agency (city, county, state, which one? I was city), who advocates absolute authority because he wears a badge... you even bragged about using your "power" regarding that fellows property. I do not doubt you are very familiar with the "magic typwriter" and I'm pretty sure you have altered the details of particular incidents to support your arrests. I certainly hope you haven't stooped to "testylying" though I would not be surprised if you have.

Based soley on the tone and content of the majority of your statements you are one of "those" cops. The one's that give the rest of us a bad name.

Mine's 12 inches...

polarbare wrote in post #5871785
Doug is spot on. Just blindly question authority? Nope. I love living in a democracy and not a fascist state and I want to keep it that way.

I was a firefighter/paramedic for years before switching careers. I know hundreds of LEOs and the thing I learned most about them is.......

wait for it.....

they're HUMAN!! and therefore prone to mistakes, errors in judgment, fallibility, etc..
LEOs DO have a hard job but so do lots of people. They also have a dangerous job but so do lots of people. Part of the responsibility of becoming a LEO is knowing when and where your authority ends.

This is spot on. With the small exception that we are supposed to be living in a Republic... but that's another topic (I'm a big T.Jefferson fan).

The problem is that the badge sometimes goes to the head. An old Sgt. used to call it "wyatt earp syndrome", they get a gun and a badge and all of a suddent they're wyatt earp in dodge city. I call it the Judge Dredd syndrome.

An LEO needs to realize where his authority begins and where it ends... It seems that too many these days do not, but perhaps it is merely because these incidents are becoming more noticed due to the media rather than it being an increase.

SlowBlink wrote in post #5873816
If I took that statement alone on face value I'd say the author is cynical. If I read his previous posts I might have a better understanding of his overall view.

Statements such as: When police are good at their job they're life savers, nothing short.

If I took all the ridicule and patronizing insults from an author in this thread I could give the impression he was smug and antagonistic. He's most likely a good PO, the odds are in our favour. But we're not addressing a good cop, just what appears to be at face value a bad one.

In high school, we had a kid on our baseball team that, was an acceptable player, not bad, not good. He wasn't too well liked, though, as he kind of kept to himself.

In any case, about halfway into baseball season, he has just worked his way into the starting lineup, when he is accused of assaulting another student at a party. The student was a girl, but the described assault was not sexual in nature. The girl was a student council officer, had great grades, cheerleader, and well liked by all. She was one of those few people that seemed basically was above reproach.

She reported the assault to her parents, who called police. The police began their investigation, and within 24 hours the kid was kicked off the baseball team. Gone. The coach offered that we didn't have any room on the team for that kind of person. Since nobody really knew him, no one really cared.

A week later, we learned that it was the young mans older brother who assaulted the girl -- he had borrowed his brother's car. See, the kid who got the boot wasn't even AT the party -- he was at home studying. His brother was drunk, and got pissed when the girl wouldn't give him a smoke. She didn't know the kid, but recognized his car, so jumped to the conclusion that it was our teammate who had done it. An honest mistake.

What everybody thought was something we could all take at face value cost a kid an important opportunity.

CountryBoy wrote in post #5871952
Maybe he yanked out a copy of the "Photographer's Rights " and told the trooper to read it Either way , I think both handled it the wrong way.

heh heh, aimed at me was this one? LOL.

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".

I would have explained calmly that I did have the "right" to be there as I was not contaminated the crime scene nor getting in the way of their investigation. I would have "suggested" that perhaps he take a look at this (that paper), which by no means carries the force of law, but might be some good info that can be passed around at shift change or some such.

I would have also volunteered to give him copies of any pics I take just in case they may come in helpful later to their accident reconstructionists (if it was a fatality) or for his report.

If he continued to be beligerant then I would have asked to speak to his shift commander or sgt. and got his badge number and name.

If he calmed down great, if not then we go from there... (it would be bad for him if he refused to get his LT or Sgt.).

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

Your joking right? 20 years on the force and you haven't run into this? LOL.

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".

Didn't they teach you anything in investigations class?

Don't you realize that the pictures that photog takes can be valuable?

In addition to getting shots at the scene before the evidence techs get there (ie; people around at the time, what it first looked like, etc. etc.)... if it wasn't an accident and was instead a homocide, burlgarly, or something else.

The photog may get a picture of the people involved... maybe they stuck around, maybe there were witneses that you wouldn't have known about that he got on film before they left?

These may be key to solving a case or at the very least may help in the report. Heck, I carried a little 35mm instamatic camera around with me (helped with a couple of convinctions too I might add).

Geez... 20 years and you don't even know that?

Now as far as "watching everyone", while this is true, nothing prevents you from going up and asking who he is, for informational purposes, in a non-confrontational manner (didn't you learn "verbal judo" or whatever they call it where you are at?).

In fact this could be a good start to make an ally instead of an enemy and get copies of what may be valuable evidentiary pictures! WOW! Imagine that! 20 years you say? LOL I learned that my first year out of the academy.