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

[Allen Friday]

In the case of brutality, I would suggest continuing to shoot. For a run of the mill cop who doesn't know the limits of her authority, I would complain later. No suggested approach works for all cases, for all people.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

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.

This is precisely correct. Only very public embarrassment via video evidence is useful and effective.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't think it's the job of Joe public to record police brutality, it's the job of professional photojournalists who are employed by the media who will publish the photographs and expose the wrong doing.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't think it's the job of Joe public to record police brutality, it's the job of professional photojournalists who are employed by the media who will publish the photographs and expose the wrong doing.

Media response is several hours to several weeks... even longer than a typical 911 emergency call. No sir, if you really want justice then you'd better have your own record and publish it publicly. I guess you've never been harassed by someone in authority over you. That's good but when it happens... and you have no evidence... good luck with trying to make it right... and making a difference regarding the same abuse happening to others. Video evidence is proof. Verbal is just hearsay (he said/she said) and is completely ignored by both authorities and the media. A written affidavit or written complaint are no more effective than an angry phone call, heard to them as " blah, blah, blah, BLAHH!!, unless accompanied by a publicly published embarrassing video.

 

[removed account4]

just to add to my rant ...

i am not talking about police brutality and abuse of power
i certainly see a point to photograph that ...

 

[Jim Jones]

Some animals will fight to the death to defend their own turf, or to acquire the turf of others. Perhaps the inclination of a few photographers to be confrontational when asserting their presumed rights is a flaw inherited from such remote animal ancestors. Photographers with enough intellect to produce meaningful images should also act with humanity.

 

[David Lyga]

Admittedly, there is something justifiably negative to say about obnoxious, 'in your face' photographers who insist upon every right being hand delivered to them upon a silver platter. That said, there also is something positive to say about being able to capture an incident which stands a good chance of being buried, forever, by a policing 'fore-action' that preempts such recording.

The problem is this: police are, through the decades, SO USED to being able to 'call the shots' and now they are so baffled and miffed with this newest technology being able to PREVENT that powerful assertion on their collective part, that their reaction is simply to attempt to augment their powers in order to attempt to combat this technology. Special anger, an augmented anger, is the result of their having to deal with the frustration of not being able to always be on the winning side of the equation. They are NOT USED to being, ever, the 'wrong' component, and their collective self-righteousness conflates with their real-time ability to manifest such powers.

Until we are able to have honest discussions with them about the meaning, bearing, and results of excess power, we will remain embedded within this quandary. It is in the policing's best interest, long-term, to be able to come to grips with this dilemma. People, today, are not going to back away as readily as in the past. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

They know about the problem. Those talks have happened.... repeatedly. In Los Angeles (as in other major police departments) the police will soon be wearing video cameras to record their interaction with the citizens. There are promised to be stiff penalties for "convenient malfunctions". Many police agencies have cameras in their cars too. There are many police agencies that recognize the problem they have with some of their officers and are taking direct actions to resolve. But "help from the public" is not one of their chosen approaches to policing the police. The issue is so very widespread and the resolution is quite costly so a quick fix just isn't in the cards.

But as often seems to happen... this has so very little to do with photography.

 

[David Lyga]

Well, then, Brian, you have 'writ large' the proposition that police do not WANT anything to do with circumscription of powers.

That does not bode well for bostering their so-called sense of 'patriotism' which seems to be but a facsimile of rectitude, and their very oath seems to be but a bit of heresy posited as 'hearsay'. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

I think what I really said was, "I'd rather talk about photography."

 

[David Lyga]

Yes, back on topic: The photography is prevented from being captured ... by the raptures of police power. - David Lyga

 

[benjiboy]

Media response is several hours to several weeks... even longer than a typical 911 emergency call. No sir, if you really want justice then you'd better have your own record and publish it publicly. I guess you've never been harassed by someone in authority over you. That's good but when it happens... and you have no evidence... good luck with trying to make it right... and making a difference regarding the same abuse happening to others. Video evidence is proof. Verbal is just hearsay (he said/she said) and is completely ignored by both authorities and the media. A written affidavit or written complaint are no more effective than an angry phone call, heard to them as " blah, blah, blah, BLAHH!!, unless accompanied by a publicly published embarrassing video.

I'm not a professional photojournalist and don't delude myself that I am as many amateurs seem to do, and I don't wish to be Batman and fight injustice wherever it shows it's ugly head, if I was out with my camera and saw an incident between the police and a member of public brutality or not I would turn round and walk away.

 

[Steve Smith]

if I was out with my camera and saw an incident between the police and a member of public brutality or not I would turn round and walk away.

If there was brutality involved in either direction, I would photograph it.


Steve.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If there was brutality involved in either direction, I would photograph it.


Steve.

As I would. What's the police officer going to do... shoot me?

Keep in mind, this discussion mutated from unlawful denial of Freedom of Speech to Police brutality. The latter is far more important to document but the former is very important too. The former I'd only document if I had video with audio and would stop once I recorded enough to post on youtube. The latter I'd photograph with a box camera if that's all I had and I shoot until I ran out of film.

 

[David Lyga]

We wish that we could be honest with our so-called 'rights' but, as evidenced by many of these posts, and also an objective scrutiny of the real world, oftentimes this is impossible. Ben says to walk away. At first glance that seems cowardly, even uncaring, but ... there is at least a semblance of a valid point here. Old and Feeble inferred the same, saying that he was too old and not rich enough to offer much resistance.

What really is the noble thing to do? Again, there just might not be easy answers. Police are invested with powers that can greatly transcend our civilian status. One hundred civilians' voices probably amount to the voice of one police officer. That is how we have set up our society, both for pragmatic reasons and for political ones, much like how we have set up our representative system, handily denying a true democracy in favor of deflecting a fear of mob rule.

I wanted to see what responses we could obtain here on this intellectually valid forum and I do sense that a lot of you do, indeed, agree with my precepts. But agreeing is only 'seeing', not acting, not even really reacting, just largely accepting (albeit, grudgingly). However, does that recalcitrance define cowardice? Perhaps affirming that would be hasty and even incorrect. We have to live and go through each day and hope to end each day in a sane condition. So, I might not have any real answers here, but I am more informed because of this thread. (I wish that police were, as well.) - David Lyga

 

[benjiboy]

We wish that we could be honest with our so-called 'rights' but, as evidenced by many of these posts and also an objective scrutiny of the real world, oftentimes this is impossible. Ben says to walk away. At first glance that seems cowardly, even uncaring, but ... there is at least a semblance of a valid point here. Old and Feeble inferred the same, saying that he was too old and not rich enough to offer much resistance.

What really is the noble thing to do? Again, there just might not be easy answers. Police are invested with powers that can greatly transcend our civilian status. One hundred civilians' voices probably amount to the voice of one police officer. That is how we have set up our society, both for pragmatic reasons and for political ones, much like how we have set up our representative system, handily denying a true democracy in favor of deflecting mob rule.

I wanted to see what responses we could obtain here on this intellectually valid forum and I do sense that a lot of you do, indeed, agree with my precepts. But agreeing is only 'seeing', not acting, not even really reacting, just largely accepting. However, does that recalcitrance define cowardice? Perhaps affirming that would be hasty and even incorrect. We have to live and go through each day and hope to end each day in a sane condition. So, I might not have any real answers here, but I am more informed because of this thread. (I wish that police were, as well.) - David Lyga

David I would not walk away out of cowardice, (I was a Royal Marine for five years, have been in combat on numerous occasions in various country s and still have the scars to prove it) partly out of consideration to my wife and children who would not appreciate me getting involved and falling foul of the police unnecessarily by taking photographs and inflaming what is probably a an already volatile situation, but mainly because at the age of nearly 76 I'm wise enough to know that injustice is endemic worldwide in human civilization like warfare, and I don't intend to try and become the "caped crusader" and attempt to eradicate injustice and brutality single handedly, it's a case of "discretion being the better part of valour".

 

[Steve Smith]

As I would. What's the police officer going to do... shoot me?

Yours might, mine can't!


steve.

 

[David Lyga]

Ben, I was merely stating the generic possibilities and not focusing directly upon your noble persona. Honestly. - David Lyga

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yours might, mine can't!


steve.

LOL... yeah okay but I'll take that chance. I'm alone with no one relying on or needing me and my health is down the proverbial toilet so I guess I don't much care if they shoot me.

 

[MattKing]

I think part of my perspective on this issue is influenced by all of the positive experience I have had with police.

And that includes cross-examining them in court, in aid of obtaining an acquittal for accused clients.

There are definitely problem police officers, and there are some systemic and "cultural" challenges to deal with, but generally:

1) police in Canada are highly trained;
2) police in Canada are subject to fairly intense legal, civilian and public scrutiny;
3) police in Canada are held to a quite rigorous code of ethics and conduct; and
4) police in Canada are well paid, have good benefits, good job security and usually decent retirement pensions.

Police jobs here are highly sought after. A university degree is usually a requirement, and most police officers perform a lot of unpaid "reserve" work before obtaining full time employment.

I could point to a number of examples of shameful behaviour by Canadian police, but one of the reasons I can do so is because they are usually reported so publicly, due to their exceptional nature.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ You in Texas now, boy. Gitcha hands up!!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I could point to a number of examples of shameful behaviour by Canadian police, but one of the reasons I can do so is because they are usually reported so publicly, due to their exceptional nature.

I believe the exact same thing can be said of the U.S. police.

Talk of being beaten up in the back seat or having one's chest shot full of holes is far more (bad) Hollywood fiction than fact. I do wish all police officers had personal video cameras -- just to prove how good and restrained they really are (and, no, there have been no police officers in my family). I have observed police action in various parts of the world for comparison.

"Do photographers have a right to defy the police?". Yes, they have a right. Do they "have an obligation" - maybe - it depends on the circumstances, but I'd bet those circumstances are very rare. Photographers do have an obligation not to walk around with a biased attitude and a chip on their shoulder.

This is my only comment.

 

[lxdude]

I think I would become aggressive while trying to to do my job if someone kept taking pictures of me.

But that does not mean your aggression would be justified.
No one has the right to interfere with an officer while taking pictures, just as they don't if they are not taking pictures. But the act of taking pictures is not, in itself, interference. Discharging a flash could be interference, but it's the flash, not obtaining a photo, that is what is wrong. Being so close as to distract or interfere with an officer is a problem- whether it was to obtain a photo is beside the point.
BTW, it's a good thing you didn't go into professional sports!

 

[lxdude]

I don't think it's the job of Joe public to record police brutality

It's not the job. It is the right. And if no media are there, it will go unrecorded, so the "it's the job of the media" argument is inapplicable in that situation.
I consider it my obligation, to the victim and to society, to record it if I have the means to do so.

 

[David Lyga]

Bodycams certainly saved the day here: http://time.com/3667089/albuquerque-police-murder-charge-body-cameras/

One is justified in wondering how may more murders these officers committed while incognito.

My opinion is that photography is VITAL towards maintaining a credible society that is not threatened with police usurping the rights of those not in a position to fight back. If police cannot police themselves, who can? Maybe a camera can.

But more troubling will be the ongoing efforts by police to remove such evidence, or not allow it in the first place to be recorded. A camera is a technical instrument, not a truth (which cannot be voided). Thus, it remains to be seen how much of a commitment towards this new technology will be supported by those placed in a position to really matter.

It is sad that a law enforcment oath is, all too often, but an oath of hypocrisy, and duly backed, confirmed, by sycophants in power. - David Lyga