Photograph the Police, get arrested

[Lee Shively]

"If you are not obstractring the police work or endangering anyone, why should one be arrested for taking photographs in public even if they are police officers. I thought they exist to assist and protect lawfull citizens not to harm them if they are not over stepping the lines."

Well, I actually agree but...

This would have to do with the perspective of the police vs the perspective of the photographer. The police officer's view of what is obstructing or endangering is what counts at the scene. He is in charge. You might be proven correct when the case goes before the court system but you risk being arrested in the interim.

Also, police do not exist to assist and protect, despite the romantic ideal and the slogans on the doors of police cars all over the place. They are there to uphold the law. If it's a bad law, a crappy law, a law that stinks so bad they have to hold their noses to uphold it and they hate doing it--it's what they are supposed to do. If they can assist and protect in the process, it's a side benefit.

 

[arigram]

The police officer's view of what is obstructing or endangering is what counts at the scene... He is in charge... If it's a bad law, a crappy law, a law that stinks so bad...

So you are telling me that a police officer has the absolute power to do whatever he feels like doing even if its ultimely to harm a lawfull innocent?
Its very common here in Greece for the police to target journalists and photographers, beating them up, breaking their equipment and arresting them with no charge.
You agree with that?
Which democratic laws state that is unlawfull to take a photograph in public?
Or is any law ok, as long it is a law?
How is a photograph harmfull to a police officer?
Unless ofcourse (s)he is doing something something unlawfull or brutal and has reasons to object to a documentation of his actions.
Like it happens on demonstrations in Greece where the riot police will use ten year old expired tear gas, hold their rods by the reverse and hitting with the hard handle, targeting the people with their flare, gas or rubber bullet guns, shouting obsenities and doing things to provoke riots and so on.
Or maybe taking pictures of them cracking the sculls of peacefull students or taking pictures of faces of pleasure when they do so.
I am sure then the police officers would have any right to hurt the photographer for even being there to take such documentaries.
When I write the international news for the newspaper and hunt for photos I see things like that often in Nepal, in Pakistan, in Iran, in Israel, in Ecuador, but also in France, in Germany, in the US...

You are quite right. The police officer is in charge, he can arrest you for obscuring the pavement, smash your camera and beat you up for resisting arrest and hold you with no real charges.

 

[df cardwell]

Ari, you really do like to twist an argument.

HEY ! Get over here fast, there's probably a highly paid position in government
with your talent for 'spin' !

 

[tim atherton]

Lee Shively...Also, police do not exist to assist and protect, despite the romantic ideal and the slogans on the doors of police cars all over the place. They are there to uphold the law. If it's a bad law, a crappy law, a law that stinks so bad they have to hold their noses to uphold it and they hate doing it--it's what they are supposed to do .

And if what they do (vis a vis photographers in particular say) is not based on even a bad law - but they do it anyway, even if in fact it violates the law, what then?

 

[arigram]

Ari, you really do like to twist an argument.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Lee Shively]

Tim, from my original post: "The police officer's view of what is obstructing or endangering is what counts at the scene. He is in charge. You might be proven correct when the case goes before the court system but you risk being arrested in the interim."

I don't much like it either but it doesn't change the fact that legal systems seldom have much to do with justice.

 

[arigram]

damn, I really wasn't in the mood for a serious and time consuming discussion, I didn't think I was going to be put in the middle of it.
Oh, well, too late.
Just be easy on me, I am not in mood for fighting...

 

[df cardwell]

...
Just be easy on me, I am not in mood for fighting...

Me neither. Here, have some more wine.

d

 

[arigram]

Me neither. Here, have some more wine.

d

Make it a spanish rioja please. My favorite.

I really have lost interest in serious discussions over the internet after sixteen years online. For one thing, I am not sure with whom I am talking with, what kind of person he really is or how many people are hiding behind their terminals and cursing me for generations in secret.
Its no fun.
I prefer to see the other person.

Anyway, I have stated my ideas on the matter, if someone else wishes to add something go ahead.

 

[nc5p]

I've got in a lot of disputes with cops over the years and somehow managed to stay out of court, in one case because the DA refused to prosecute. My name is on a watch list and I cannot get jobs in the defense complex because of it. (My day job was an electrical engineer, though I'm unemployed). I generally keep the camera out of sight anymore when cops are around.

The political fact is that by far most police in the USA work for a local municipality. Some, like in my neighborhood, work for a county. Therefore blaming "Bush" for their behavior is nonsense. They answer to a mayor who signs their paychecks. These guys put up with their behavior and the public keeps re-electing them. I guess we should blame the public if anyone.

There does seem to be a lot of this kind of crap lately all over the place. Locally, there have been a lot of cops charged with misconduct. (drunk driving, stealing, spousal abuse, rape, bribery) There seems to be several a week in the news. If they are behaving bad, it's no wonder that cameras are a threat to them. They don't want to get prosecuted and are acting to protect themselves from prosecution and litigation. Cops do act crazy when they are arresting people. I've watched them beating people up in handcuffs, spitting on them, and kicking them where it hurts. Even if you are half a mile from the scene, watching from your front porch, they have been known to arrest you for interfering. Some local judges are idiots and find people in these cases guilty. (I think judges are scared of the cops and their union that comes out around election time.) There's another guy lately in NH who was busted for having security cameras at his house that caught police acting up on his front porch. They've charged him with felonies for the taping. What I don't understand in that case is how Walmart can do it at their stores? What's the difference?

In short, I don't take pictures of cops except when they are at an event showing off their equipment, etc. I have enough trouble with vigilantes to mess with cops. I'm in complete agreement that people ought to be able to take photos of anything in public view. However, we don't live in a perfect world and it isn't worth getting shot, beat up, or sentenced to two years to get a good "shot". And yes, this does happen all over the world, not just the USA.

Doug

 

[Sparky]

Observe the Israli Army, get your observation post blown up.

Same deal, I guess.

 

[donbga]

Observe the Israli Army, get your observation post blown up.

Same deal, I guess.

What an absolutely stupid comment.

 

[arigram]

Since there seems to be no further interest in this topic, can a moderator close the thread as it gives signs of deteriorating into a generalised quasi political flame war?

 

[copake_ham]

Since there seems to be no further interest in this topic, can a moderator close the thread as it gives signs of deteriorating into a generalised quasi political flame war?

In other words, having started a controversial thread and become displeased with its direction you want the moderator to pull your fanny out of the fire and close it?

Perhaps next time you will consider the possible reactions and consequences before starting such a thread?

 

[arigram]

In other words, having started a controversial thread and become displeased with its direction you want the moderator to pull your fanny out of the fire and close it?

Perhaps next time you will consider the possible reactions and consequences before starting such a thread?

Right, I was expecting such a reaction from you.
Considering the only thing you have been doing is trying to pick a fight and have not really added anything to the discussion, you should be the last one to talk.
I was clear with my ideas, I spent my time analysing them and discussing them with other people in a non aggressive non threating manner.
I said what I wanted to say and have nothing to add.

I have no time or desire to waste it with people like you.
Say something intelligent and productive, or keep such aggression to yourself.

I was thinking in general about the health of the thread and of the forum. At the very least it can be transfered to the SoapBox so people like you can rip each other's eyes with delight and no control.

I am outta here.