Reading mode: Light Dark

LA Sheriff Threatens To Submit Photographer to FBI's Hit List

Go to last post
If you Google the officer's name, you will eventually come up with the name of the photographer. This name will lead you to his website. On the website, he offers a video of himself and a few other similar types in front of a bank building having an altercation with a security guard. Once again, I think it is no accident that the video tape was rolling when the disagreement unfolded. The video was obviously carefully edited, but evidently these people were harassing patrons of the bank using their cameras in order to antagonize people and provoke an unpleasant reaction. Such people are scum and are doing absolutely nothing to further the cause of photographer's rights. If there is any long term effect, it will probably be the enactment of specific laws to prohibit photographers from harassing the public. We certainly do not want that outcome.

Remember, photography is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, especially if it results in the harassment of other private citizens. We share public space with people who are not interested in our hobby and we should be respectful of their rights as well as ours.
 
Exactly, you need to use "real" English Language Dictionaries, as we do in the USA. New words have likely been generated for inclusion into official American English Language, while we are discussing this topic; but, I doubt that you will soon see any of them in the dictionaries you listed (such, as the: "Collins or Oxford"). :-)

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


cellartroll said:
No entries in the Collins or Oxford English dictionaries. Only the free online dictionary :)
--
http://www.pbase.com/thecellartroll
Click to expand...
 
Only because of those smileys. That extra stamp of smug satisfaction on the wacky notions preceding them.

And I hope it goes without saying I don't intend to pick on the poster personally and I hope it doesn't come off that way. Just the ideas.

That decree is something he can go and read which refutes his notion that in practice we don't judge police/civilian interactions in hindsight.

What else would change his mind? Is he going to join the police department ? But there is that decree he can read which makes his idea difficult to maintain unless he wants to play tricks with himself.

You don't find it of interest that the poster is stating we don't judge these interactions in hindsight and then the very police department at issue was for many years subject to federal oversight of, among other things, the activity of pedestrian stops?

Also his ideas insult everyone that works in the criminal justice system, including police.

You police filling out your reports and testifying at hearings and trials. All you lawyers and judges arguing the finer points of police/civilian interactions. No, none of this activity exists. The police just come in to the precinct tell us all what the deal is and that's the end of it. Great.

His "tough guy" inference that in the "real world" there are a bunch of cops out there running wild. They do what they want blah blah blah. No the vast majority of police do their jobs in good faith and in a professional manner in accordance with law. Including, I presume, this cop, who may simply be misinformed. The NYPD had to recently instruct its officers on the burden for stopping photographers in the metro.

Back to planet earth, USA.

Riddle me this (humor me even if you think there are other facts relevant), what objective, articulable facts can you point to from the video that would lead you to suspect the photographer was engaging in or would engage in criminal activity ?
 
mw2424 said:
Dave_Anderson said:
Agreed. The only thing that he might have done differently to strengthen his position is to first answer with something along the lines of, "I'm just a hobbyist, I take pictures of whatever interests me". THEN if the cop had continued to push the photog could argue that he had given the cop the information he needed to do his job, and the rest could more easily be construed as harassment.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that would be considered reasonably sufficient. Anybody (including that "terrist" the policeman is talking about) could claim to be a hobbyist. If the policeman then, having (as we should assume) reasonable grounds not to believe in this explanation, proceeded with his pushing the photog - could the photog argue successfully that he had been harassed? That's very much debatable.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but the point is, the photog could have given reasonable answers to reasonable questions rather than turning it into a confrontation right away. That would be my approach, anyway. :)
mw2424 said:
The issue seems to be in whether the policeman could have reasonably construed the photog behavior as justifying his (policeman's) "inquiry".

This is so subjective. I had been asked in an "insisting" manner by an employee of the kind of state archives building why I was taking pictures of it (from public grounds). My responses were not satisfying him. Situation was getting unpleasant. But I think most of people would agree with the policeman and that archives' employee.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is a subjective component here, but the truth of the matter is that the photog's response alone may qualify as "suspicious behavior" in this instance. Candid answers like "I find the architecture interesting", "I'm testing a new lens", or anything that conveys that you are not worried about the cop just doing his job will get you a lot further.

Not long ago I was at my place of work over the weekend, taking calibration shots to send to the author of PTLens. The glass gridwork on the sides of the buildings was perfect for showing lens distortions. I was there for quite some time, as I have several lenses, a few of which are zooms and I needed to move around a lot to make sure I had good images with straight lines at the edge of each frame, lens perpendicular to the glass, etc.

Anyway, Security came along and eyeballed me -- then left without a word. They recognized me and my car and didn't disturb me at all. I expected some response from them even before I left the house; they were right on top of things. I brought my badge with me just in case. I think that with the 9/11 hysteria it's to be expected that you may be questioned when photographing certain subjects. It's a two-way street; it is the cop's responsibility to not presume guilt without reasonable cause, and it is our responsibility to respond to reasonable questions in a reasonable manner.

Another example; I went on a trip with two destinations before returning home. I had about 8 lenses in my carry-on. Leaving San Jose, no issues, not so much as a blink. Leaving Raleigh NC, the lady at the scanner said, "You have lenses in there... a LOT of lenses". Her tone was very slightly accusing, I just shrugged, smiled, and said, "that's right". Another TSA guy took the bag, looked inside, and did the little "swab for explosives" thing, then told me to move along. End of story. Leaving Pittsburg, the guy at the scanner asked if it was my bag, then said he had to look inside because "it looks like yo have a lot of camera lenses in there and they just look like black blobs". He went on to explain that he needed to look through each one, and when he had trouble getting the rear caps off(I have aftermarket caps with o-rings; they are a bit tight) he let me take the caps off each one, he inspected them, then I put the caps back on. Interestingly, they did not check the lens that was on the camera. :)

If I had been in any way belligerent in either NC or PA, the outcome might have been very different.

I am no more pleased than anyone else about the way we are shaken down like common criminals; I'm not even convinced we are safer for it. But I find that objecting on the spot is useless, better just to cooperate, not draw attention, and be on my way. I reserve my activism for letters to my reps, etc. where I'm not going to be strip-searched at gunpoint for expressing my views bluntly. :)
mw2424 said:
I am not even sure what I would like myself to happen in such situation, as long as it is not me involved.

(The above has nothing to do with the problems the policeman had with explaining his action and with the intentions the photographer could have in mind. These were the elements of poor education, low IQ, vigilantism, political bend, feeling of being a free, independent human, or feeling of being a member of a society, obliged to fulfill its orders in unquestioning manner.)
Click to expand...
 
Naw, I just thought it was ironic that in a thread full of complaints about cops making it up as they go along that you'd twice refer to an LAPD consent decree as applying to the Sheriff.
 
Cedarhill said:
Remember, photography is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution
Click to expand...
It's right there in the 9th Amendment, plain as day:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
 
1. Exactly; and, IMO, it's clear: "Photographers" need to be licensed, same as people in other trades/professions.

2. And, in addition, for any person to legally have a camera of any type, in public, other than cell phone, should require a license, based on the person satisfactorily passing a comprehensive written examination of what can and can not be done with a camera in public, to include proper behavior and respect/courtesy towards government/police and others in positions of public authority, to include reasons for security operations, and anything else the government/police authorities feel should be taught or required. Renewal of licenses would be at a similar frequency as required of concealed handgun licensees or other such licensees in the State of Licensure. So called "photographers" or others with cameras in public, that can't produce the appropriate license to have a camera---- will just be hauled away to jail; thereby, completely eliminating all the problems/confrontations that now occur between law enforcement and people carrying cameras.

3. It's clear that something like this is needed in the USA/Canada/Britain/Australia/New Zealand, where the problems/clashes between people carrying cameras and police, as being reported in dpreview forums, tend to mostly come from.

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


Cedarhill said:
If you Google the officer's name, you will eventually come up with the name of the photographer. This name will lead you to his website. On the website, he offers a video of himself and a few other similar types in front of a bank building having an altercation with a security guard. Once again, I think it is no accident that the video tape was rolling when the disagreement unfolded. The video was obviously carefully edited, but evidently these people were harassing patrons of the bank using their cameras in order to antagonize people and provoke an unpleasant reaction. Such people are scum and are doing absolutely nothing to further the cause of photographer's rights. If there is any long term effect, it will probably be the enactment of specific laws to prohibit photographers from harassing the public. We certainly do not want that outcome.

Remember, photography is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, especially if it results in the harassment of other private citizens. We share public space with people who are not interested in our hobby and we should be respectful of their rights as well as ours.
Click to expand...
 
...I am afraid more than 50% of the public would take it seriously, so I wouldn't be surprised if your proposed "arrangement" would find its way into some Bill of law.

And, seriously, the problem is not the danger from those "terrists", but a publication of photographs enabling identification of a person without this person consent. Press reporters DO have a licence (inherent in their job legal and commonly accepted description) allowing them to publish such photographs taken in public space, as long as these photographs do not have otherwise illegal content. A member of general public, including a professional photographer, has to have a consent for publicizing a photograph identifying a person (even if taken in public space) or a person's private property (except if taken from public space). So, either you'd only consider a publication as being against the law if a person lodges complain, or you'd actively weed out any such photo from all made public. The first option would lead to anarchy where only very rich or mighty (you'd not publish a photo of a Mafia guy without his consent, would you?) could feel "protected", the second option would be impossible to execute or impossibly costly.

So, as long as society considers publication of a person's image without this person's consent "illegal", this society uses the easiest and the cheapest way to prevent the illegal acts to happen: it removes the opportunity to commit such act.

Which is blatantly "unjust", but economical and happens all the time, everywhere, with regard to many more human activities than photography alone (e.g. possession by adults of some images is made illegal in order to prevent making such images; or possession by adult of a "personal" amount of some substance is made illegal in order to prevent production of that substance).
 
BRJR said:
1. Exactly; and, IMO, it's clear: "Photographers" need to be licensed, same as people in other trades/professions.

2. And, in addition, for any person to legally have a camera of any type, in public, other than cell phone, should require a license, based on the person satisfactorily passing a comprehensive written examination of what can and can not be done with a camera in public, to include proper behavior and respect/courtesy towards government/police and others in positions of public authority, to include reasons for security operations, and anything else the government/police authorities feel should be taught or required. Renewal of licenses would be at a similar frequency as required of concealed handgun licensees or other such licensees in the State of Licensure. So called "photographers" or others with cameras in public, that can't produce the appropriate license to have a camera---- will just be hauled away to jail; thereby, completely eliminating all the problems/confrontations that now occur between law enforcement and people carrying cameras.

3. It's clear that something like this is needed in the USA/Canada/Britain/Australia/New Zealand, where the problems/clashes between people carrying cameras and police, as being reported in dpreview forums, tend to mostly come from.

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


Cedarhill said:
If you Google the officer's name, you will eventually come up with the name of the photographer. This name will lead you to his website. On the website, he offers a video of himself and a few other similar types in front of a bank building having an altercation with a security guard. Once again, I think it is no accident that the video tape was rolling when the disagreement unfolded. The video was obviously carefully edited, but evidently these people were harassing patrons of the bank using their cameras in order to antagonize people and provoke an unpleasant reaction. Such people are scum and are doing absolutely nothing to further the cause of photographer's rights. If there is any long term effect, it will probably be the enactment of specific laws to prohibit photographers from harassing the public. We certainly do not want that outcome.

Remember, photography is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, especially if it results in the harassment of other private citizens. We share public space with people who are not interested in our hobby and we should be respectful of their rights as well as ours.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
[sarcasm on]Yeah, to the trash bin with that whole Bill of Rights thing our forefathers fought and died for. [sarcasm off]
BRJR said:
1. Exactly; and, IMO, it's clear: "Photographers" need to be licensed, same as people in other trades/professions.

2. And, in addition, for any person to legally have a camera of any type, in public, other than cell phone, should require a license, based on the person satisfactorily passing a comprehensive written examination of what can and can not be done with a camera in public, to include proper behavior and respect/courtesy towards government/police and others in positions of public authority, to include reasons for security operations, and anything else the government/police authorities feel should be taught or required. Renewal of licenses would be at a similar frequency as required of concealed handgun licensees or other such licensees in the State of Licensure. So called "photographers" or others with cameras in public, that can't produce the appropriate license to have a camera---- will just be hauled away to jail; thereby, completely eliminating all the problems/confrontations that now occur between law enforcement and people carrying cameras.

3. It's clear that something like this is needed in the USA/Canada/Britain/Australia/New Zealand, where the problems/clashes between people carrying cameras and police, as being reported in dpreview forums, tend to mostly come from.

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


Cedarhill said:
If you Google the officer's name, you will eventually come up with the name of the photographer. This name will lead you to his website. On the website, he offers a video of himself and a few other similar types in front of a bank building having an altercation with a security guard. Once again, I think it is no accident that the video tape was rolling when the disagreement unfolded. The video was obviously carefully edited, but evidently these people were harassing patrons of the bank using their cameras in order to antagonize people and provoke an unpleasant reaction. Such people are scum and are doing absolutely nothing to further the cause of photographer's rights. If there is any long term effect, it will probably be the enactment of specific laws to prohibit photographers from harassing the public. We certainly do not want that outcome.

Remember, photography is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, especially if it results in the harassment of other private citizens. We share public space with people who are not interested in our hobby and we should be respectful of their rights as well as ours.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
Chris, Broussard, LA
 
How do you know, and how does the copper know that this man hasn't been recetnly released from prison and his bail conditions state that he is not allowed to take photographs in public because of the nature of his crime?

The only way to know that is too ask him. If the photographer is relaxed and answers the questions with civility then all is going to be well.

If he answers with an attitude he's only going to get an attitude back from the copper.

As one of the general population he wasn't breaking the law, but it doesn't mean that there is no way he could have been breaking the law. There are circumstances for certain people, where photography is illegal, so how would you propose the police tackle this, if not asking the people directly?

:)
miick said:
What? You can be stopped on the street whilst doing nothing wrong and be asked to 'splain yourself? Or you car pulled over on the off chance that you're breaking a law?

[snip]

Remember, (and this is important ) the OP was not breaking any law. Or even a subway rule . Far's I know, anyway.
Click to expand...
 
The right to pursue your own happiness necessarily must be balanced with the rights of other people to pursue theirs. I am not speaking about the guy in the subway, but rather the same guy outside a bank building harassing customers. Why do you think the photographer's right to take photos in front of a bank building trumps the rights of bank customers to come and go as they please with out having somebody use a camera as a harassment tool? The issue of photographer't rights gets a lot more cloudy when that so called "right" is in conflict with ohter people's rights to live their lives in peace. There are all sorts of laws that have been enacted to try to address the issue of one person's rights versus another's. It is not beyond the possible, or even probable, that the actions of this guy and others like him could result in laws restricting photographer's rights in order to protect other people's rights. That is one reason why I view this guy's behavior as not only uncivil, but counterproductive to the cause he espouses.
Habemus_Canon said:
Cedarhill said:
Remember, photography is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution
Click to expand...
It's right there in the 9th Amendment, plain as day:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Click to expand...
 
You can't be serious with your little list? If you are then that is just sad.

You said "So called "photographers" or others with cameras in public, that can't produce the appropriate license to have a camera---- will just be hauled away to jail"

Do you live in North Korea?
BRJR said:
1. Exactly; and, IMO, it's clear: "Photographers" need to be licensed, same as people in other trades/professions.

2. And, in addition, for any person to legally have a camera of any type, in public, other than cell phone, should require a license, based on the person satisfactorily passing a comprehensive written examination of what can and can not be done with a camera in public, to include proper behavior and respect/courtesy towards government/police and others in positions of public authority, to include reasons for security operations, and anything else the government/police authorities feel should be taught or required. Renewal of licenses would be at a similar frequency as required of concealed handgun licensees or other such licensees in the State of Licensure. So called "photographers" or others with cameras in public, that can't produce the appropriate license to have a camera---- will just be hauled away to jail; thereby, completely eliminating all the problems/confrontations that now occur between law enforcement and people carrying cameras.

3. It's clear that something like this is needed in the USA/Canada/Britain/Australia/New Zealand, where the problems/clashes between people carrying cameras and police, as being reported in dpreview forums, tend to mostly come from.

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


Cedarhill said:
If you Google the officer's name, you will eventually come up with the name of the photographer. This name will lead you to his website. On the website, he offers a video of himself and a few other similar types in front of a bank building having an altercation with a security guard. Once again, I think it is no accident that the video tape was rolling when the disagreement unfolded. The video was obviously carefully edited, but evidently these people were harassing patrons of the bank using their cameras in order to antagonize people and provoke an unpleasant reaction. Such people are scum and are doing absolutely nothing to further the cause of photographer's rights. If there is any long term effect, it will probably be the enactment of specific laws to prohibit photographers from harassing the public. We certainly do not want that outcome.

Remember, photography is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, especially if it results in the harassment of other private citizens. We share public space with people who are not interested in our hobby and we should be respectful of their rights as well as ours.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
'87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot'

ShutterBugin
 
And it's very important IMO, is what were the events that led-up to the contact by the Sheriff's Deputy. Was this guy in people's faces with his camera? Did someone complain about him earlier and the Deputy was following-up by watching him before contacting him? I seriously doubt that if this guy was just grabbing a snapshot or two as he walked along that the Deputy would have been concerned. It's important to know the whole story, including what led-up to the confrontation.

--
Greg
 
Arun Gaur said:
That relates to the significance of context. Also whether the rules or the spirit of the rules is to be followed.
Arun Gaur

http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com
Click to expand...
http://discarted.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/la-sheriffs-unlawfully-detain-photographers-rights-advocate/

--

28 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1,Fuji 5200,Canon S2,Pentax K100D,Olympus 380,Canon SX 10 ( http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Buckl/ )

http://issuu.com/Lbuck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top