Do photographers have not only a right but also an ethical obligation to defy police?

[moose10101]

They try but it's not legal and in the cases we get to hear about, the police always issue an apology.

But no, the person doing the arresting does not get to decide if it's an arrestable offence. That is dictated by law.

They do, at the time the arrest is being made; obviously, that doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean that people here and there do get arrested for things that are not an arrestable offense. I think we all know that the police can't make up their own laws, but try to stop them from enforcing one when they're sure it exists.

 

[Steve Smith]

They do, at the time the arrest is being made; obviously, that doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean that people here and there do get arrested for things that are not an arrestable offense. I think we all know that the police can't make up their own laws, but try to stop them from enforcing one when they're sure it exists.

Not sure how it works where you are but here, if you don't agree with an officer, you can ask him to call his station for clarification on a point of law.

And technically, if it's not an arrestable offence, then you haven't been arrested, just detained. When you are arrested, you have to be told what you are being arrested for.


Steve.

 

[David Lyga]

It's a case of might makes right situationally.

I think that this response is probably the best so far. Other comments from Flying Camera and also those from Benjiboy also were rather well targeted. As far as a camera, physically out of the way, being a 'hindrance': that is a bit too subjective for me to readily buy.

We have to understand that, at least in the USA, 'rights' are at least partially subjective. Maybe that is the key to understanding the synergism of authoritatian protocol and objective statute. Maybe, there are no absolutes here. But... that said, we should be clearer with our definitions and allow the objective nature of law to become, perhaps, a bit more subordinate.

But if we agree to allow this breathing room to manifest, we need to train police better and make certain that they are more accountable for their actions. What particularly disturbs me is the fight back against really intelligent cadet candidates amongst forces nationwide. A few years ago, in New London, CT, a recruit was denied access to the police academy because he had an Ivy League education (I believe Yale). (Are police terrified of a Liberal Arts education? Why? Is it because, with such, we gain a more balanced, nuanced approach towards fairness?) There is something really disturbing about that rejection and we do not witness anything nearly like the Philosopher King mentality that the Greeks decided would be best, at least theoretically, to rule and enact and enforce laws.

In summation, I guess I would not be as disturbed with these things if I truly felt that the person with the authority had an unquestioned maturity, was painstakingly fair and honest, and was duly versed in the soft (liberal arts) as well as the hard (weaponry and authority) aspects of managing a society whose very norms are continually in flux. - David Lyga

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm no coward but no longer have the mind nor energy nor funds to combat such a situation. That is if I was shooting still images.

If I was shooting video, with audio, I would definitely stand my ground long enough to have a revealing video of the abuse and post it on youtube. The only way to fight these types of abuses is to publicly embarrass both the offending individual and his entire organization and, along with that, the person's supervisors and trainers.

Public embarrassment is really the only way to fight willful ignorance of the law and abuse of power.

 

[David Lyga]

I hate your response, 'Old', but I have to admit that it probably holds water.

The problem with David Lyga is that he is perpetually looking for algorithms which are inviolable. Perhaps, your 'Feebleness' is not yet too profound, Old. - David Lyga

 

[480sparky]

............Public embarrassment is really the only way to fight willful ignorance of the law and abuse of power.

As opposed to proper training of the officers to begin with?

Perhaps we should all volunteer a bit of our time to visit the local cop shops and have a little heart-to-heart talk with them. Proactive is much better than reactive.

 

[David Lyga]

David, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the cop in the N.J. case demand the video as evidence of the accident? I don't agree that he arrest the gentleman for refusal, and the local DA states, he more than likely will dismiss all charges against said man.

Rick (the sane): If you are correct about the cop merely wanting the video, then the response must be different. But my take on the matter was that the accident involved another cop and this cop wanted to protect this fellow officer from the evidence. NOT good. And if he wanted that video, why? To destroy the evidence? Again, NOT good.

Sparky, your response seems to me to be a bit naive. Having a 'heart to heart' talk with police is usually vehemently avoided by such. This is a real shame to witness within our culture, but it is largely true. Police generally want to be islands who are 'above' the public and want not to be accountable towards them.

Take this, hypothetically: If tomorrow, somehow it was declared that police, from now on, would be given powers to both enact and enforce laws (i.e., no separation of powers) how many do you think would be complaining?) That, Sparky, is the real factor to consider. Democracy is not really loved, embraced, upheld, by the general authoritarian mentality. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

They do, at the time the arrest is being made; obviously, that doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean that people here and there do get arrested for things that are not an arrestable offense. I think we all know that the police can't make up their own laws, but try to stop them from enforcing one when they're sure it exists.

Isn't there a distinction that needs to be made: arrested (detained) by a law enforcement officer versus charged (with violating a law/ordinance) by a district attorney?

 

[David Lyga]

Yes, in the USA, 'arrest' does NOT infer culpability by a court, only by police, and for reasons largely to suit their desires, and not necessarily by a strict statutory necessity. It is the same, I believe, as being 'detained'. - David Lyga

 

[Rick A]

Rick (the sane): If you are correct about the cop merely wanting the video, then the response must be different. But my take on the matter was that the accident involved another cop and this cop wanted to protect this fellow officer from the evidence. NOT good. And if he wanted that video, why? To destroy the evidence? Again, NOT good.

Sparky, your response seems to me to be a bit naive. Having a 'heart to heart' talk with police is usually vehemently avoided by such. This is a real shame to witness within our culture, but it is largely true. Police generally want to be islands who are 'above' the public and want not to be accountable towards them.

Take this, hypothetically: If tomorrow, somehow it was declared that police, from now on, would be given powers to both enact and enforce laws (i.e., no separation of powers) how many do you think would be complaining?) That, Sparky, is the real factor to consider. Democracy is not really loved, embraced, upheld, by the general authoritarian mentality. - David Lyga

David, you are insightful as to the cops motivation for demanding the film. I read another account of the incident, and in fact, there was another cop who was involved in(and possibly at fault for) the accident. What resulted, looks to be blatant cronyism at it's worst. At first glimpse, it might appear the abusive officer was trying to cover up, but maybe not. Maybe he truly wanted the evidence to prove out fault. At any rate, an innocent bystander suffered the wrath of an out of control person of authority. There are many instances of "badge heavy" officers who take it on themselves to invent rules as they go along. There are also many examples of law abiding citizens who have prevailed in the situation by being calm and having rational responses.

 

[BrianShaw]

Have you ever noticed that for background checks the question is always "have you ever been arrested?" versus "Have you ever been charged with crime?" They may as well ask, "have you ever been pulled over for a traffic violation that you didn't commit but got a ticket for anyway?" At least in the traffic ticket scenario there is a real "charge" being levied by the citation.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Rick (the sane): If you are correct about the cop merely wanting the video, then the response must be different. But my take on the matter was that the accident involved another cop and this cop wanted to protect this fellow officer from the evidence. NOT good. And if he wanted that video, why? To destroy the evidence? Again, NOT good.

Sparky, your response seems to me to be a bit naive. Having a 'heart to heart' talk with police is usually vehemently avoided by such. This is a real shame to witness within our culture, but it is largely true. Police generally want to be islands who are 'above' the public and want not to be accountable towards them.

Take this, hypothetically: If tomorrow, somehow it was declared that police, from now on, would be given powers to both enact and enforce laws (i.e., no separation of powers) how many do you think would be complaining?) That, Sparky, is the real factor to consider. Democracy is not really loved, embraced, upheld, by the general authoritarian mentality. - David Lyga

Police Officer Attempts to Destroy Evidence After Unlawful Arrest - Video

 

[Steve Smith]

Over here when you are arrested you are told "You are under arrest on suspicion of murder/burglary/speeding/returning a library book late" (delete as applicable).

A simple "you are under arrest" is not acceptable.


Steve.

 

[David Lyga]

Unfortunately, until the public wakes up and embraces police for the POSITIVE aspects and DENOUNCES police for the negative aspects, we are in trouble (and not only the blacks are in trouble, either)

We need to get hold of our democracy and truly explore this dire dichotomy. Doing so will pay dividends to both the public and to the police. - David Lyga

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That's precisely correct, David. I don't get out much anymore but if I did I would carry a cell phone with video ability and have a dash cam... or two. I would publicly post interactions if very positive or very negative in nature.

 

[BrianShaw]

Over here when you are arrested you are told "You are under arrest on suspicion of murder/burglary/speeding/returning a library book late" (delete as applicable).

A simple "you are under arrest" is not acceptable.


Steve.

Same here, I believe. That is different from "You are under arrest and being charged with murder/etc" or "You are under arrest because you stole a library book."

 

[benjiboy]

Yea they come with the lights and the tear gas shouting "come out we know you're in there, it's the public library"

 

[removed account4]

the constant in your face, need to defy attitude that some people with a camera feel it is their right to have
gives a lot of people who use a camera a bad name ...

photographing federal sites, or being loud and obnoxious and PITA to airport security ---
or the "street photographers" that purposely piss people off with their camera and then claim they their rights were violated
( and they didn't deserve the attitude their subject gave them -the finger - )
or people who wander into kids swimming pool parties uninvited with a camera and take candids of the kids in the pool
and whine when they got asked to leave and to hand over the film.

===

OP, to answer to your question : NO
the point of me and my camera is not to defy law enforcement.
i do not think it is my right or my ethical obligation. and yes, i have
been hassled by LE most of my adult life. WITHOUT a camera .

 

[benjiboy]

the constant in your face, need to defy attitude that some people with a camera feel it is their right to have
gives a log of people with a camera a bad name ...

i mean photographing federal sites, or being loud and obnoxious and PITA to airport security ---
or the "street photographers" that purposely piss people off with their camera and then claim they their rights were violated
( and they didn't deserve the attitude their subject gave them or to be given the finger or got in their face )
or people who wander into kids swimming pool parties uninvited with a camera and take candids of the kids in the pool
and whine when they got asked to leave and to hand over the film.

===

OP, to answer to your question : NO
the point of me and my camera is not to defy law enforcement.
i do not think it is my right or my ethical obligation. and yes, i have
been hassled by LE most of my adult life. WITHOUT a camera .

+1

 

[BrianShaw]

the constant in your face, need to defy attitude that some people with a camera feel it is their right to have
gives a lot of people who use a camera a bad name ...

...

How true. And most of the time any pictures resulting from such efforts just aren't very good. So why bother?

 

[Allen Friday]

There is a middle ground. You can stop photographing at the scene and then file a formal, written complaint later.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

There's no need to be obnoxious nor combative. Just be polite, ask respectful questions and record the encounter with law enforcement. Don't supply the rope for your own hanging... let LE supply the rope for theirs.

 

[DWThomas]

There's no need to be obnoxious nor combative. Just be polite, ask respectful questions and record the encounter with law enforcement. Don't supply the rope for your own hanging... let LE supply the rope for theirs.

Yes! Annoying as it all may be, keep in mind it is difficult to pursue legal redress after the incident if your chest is full of holes.

 

[blansky]

Tough to upload film to the cloud. Carrier pigeons, perhaps?

That used to work.

 

[blansky]

There is a middle ground. You can stop photographing at the scene and then file a formal, written complaint later.

But if your goal is to record police brutality taking place, then they achieved their goal and you didn't achieve yours.

The main reason the police are under attack in the US is because someone had the guts to videotape it and get it into the public eye.

I hardly think letters and complaints do much to stop police abuses.