• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Security stole my TriX

rphenning said:
shoulda just said , "yes sir, sorry sir", done some feigned button pressing on the back of your camera and bailed with your photos (...)
Click to expand...

That's what I imagine I would do in such a situation. I might even show him the back of the camera, "look, it's all black, so all images are erased."
 

I would have been surprised if that were not the case there.

From what I understand, the only time a person can be shot there is if they threaten an essential facility like a Vegemite factory.
 

There are rumours that security guy stupidity is a pandemia:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McB9tsabPn0[/YOUTUBE]
 
Cainquixote said:
lucky your not in the states or you might be in a jail cell.
Click to expand...

Nah, come on! This isn't North Korea or something. Destroying film would be a major legal flag here. People saying you could be shot in the states are out of their minds, even if you charge the White House brandishing a firearm they'll likely only shoot out your kneecaps So don't use this lens and all will be fine. Seriously, all the nonsense about US security is silly, we are the most litigious country in the world and nobody wants to go to court / lose a job / wind up in the paper over a few photographs by a misinformed tourist.

I've been photographing in some very "sensitive" places and never gotten anything more than a little talking-to and polite invitation to leave. Knock on wood If you're ever in a situation that somebody asks you to take out your card (Remember, they will not know that it's a film camera 99% of the time!), then go ahead and take out your card and give it to them, and remember to feign reluctance. I keep a 5 year old memory card on me just for that purpose

There is also the issue of common sense, your artistic license isn't the only issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They are always welcome to BUY the film from me!
Of course, my price varies in inverse proportion to how nice they are to me.

It starts at $100, cash-money. The bigger the A-hole they are the more zeros get tacked onto the end.
 
cmo said:
There are rumours that security guy stupidity is a pandemia:
Click to expand...

Well, at least they can stop Osama bin Stupid.
 
keithwms said:
People saying you could be shot in the states are out of their minds, even if you charge the White House brandishing a firearm they'll likely only shoot out your kneecaps So don't use this lens and all will be fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, or an old gunstock mounted follow focus Novoflex.

There is also the issue of common sense, your artistic license isn't the only issue.
Click to expand...

If you show them your artistic license will they leave you alone?
 
Oh, now that's an excellent idea, we should print out artistic licenses with the APUG symbol and our mugshots on one side and a fiche-sized copy of the Constitution on the back. These could be laminated and shown when needed....
 
I always keep this PDF in each one of my camera bags, my glove box of my car, and in my wallet. I've used only 2 or 3 times and I left with the film still in my camera!

I bet there is one from an Australian lawyer somewhere out there.
 
Just found this. All the laws about photography for basically all countries.
 
I was forbidden to take pictures at an oil refinery in Philadelphia in the middle 1960s. So, what's new!?
 
sandholm said:
I think that magic word here is trespassing. In the "States" he could have been legally shoot by the security guard
Click to expand...
What nonsense. The [United] States is quite civilized. Even if you broke in to a fenced, guarded, and posted classified military installation, it is quite unlikely that you would be shot. Do you have any idea how much paperwork the shooter and his/her superiors, probably up to The Chief of Staff, would be confronted with? Don't be silly, no one wants to do all that work.
 
Its not just the paperwork, its also the real possibility of legal prosecution for one or more offenses. With liberal courts today, you face the possibility of wrongful death, manslaughter, or worse charges, for shooting someone whether you were "in the right" or not.

Rick
 
For people who ever go to Belgium here are a few guidelines:

Security/landowners: These guys can do virtually nothing, if you trespass they can ask you to leave or call the police, they cannot stop you from leaving nor can they ask you for your identity papers or confiscate your gear/film (or demand you to delete your photographs if digital). They can ask you to temporarily hand over your gear but they can not force you to do so (it's advised to keep your gear to yourself at all times). If they use force to detain you you can sue them and security can risk their job. Security with dogs have to keep the dog on the leash and signs must be visible on the fence there is a security with dogs.

Police: Police officers can not stop you from photographing on public property nor can they prevent you to photograph any buildings or other things if you are on public property. Photographing a police officer is not forbidden if you won't use it for commercial purposes (otherwise you need a written approval of the photographed person). Police Officers can not confiscate your gear/film or ask to delete photographs without a written approval of a judge, they can ask you to temporarily hand over your gear for save keeping but they can not force you to do so (It's advised to keep your gear to yourself as damages gear has been reported a few times due bad handling). Any confiscating done without written proof of a judge is nothing more then theft and you can sue the officers who took your gear (this is strongly recommend as they at least will get what's called here a "turf verslag", this is a disciplinary report which can have serious consequences if the officer repeats his wrong doings). Film or cards may only be deleted if it's proven they are part of a crime (in most cases it must be a serious crime) and this is again decided trough a judge. If your gear is confiscated you will receive a written proof they have taken it away and you should be able to reclaim is if the investigation is finished (if they don't offer you a written proof then ask for one!!).

Military Police: This type of police is rarely seen here in Belgium and they have virtually no power if you are not on military grounds. It's strongly advised not to trespass on military installations (live or abandoned) because they have the right to confiscate your gear and destroy your photographs without a written approval of a judge!! This is because on military installations the Military Law prevails and it's quite different then Civil Law. When caught on military ground you will be handed over to the regular police and you will have to pay a substantial fine. Taking photographs of military vehicles or buildings from public grounds is in general no problem, however there is an old law that in theory forbids this but it's rarely enforced nowadays.

Places to keep in mind:

Harbours are off limits unless you have written approval of the Harbour Captain. There is a special branch called Harbour Police who only deal with the harbour, the harbour is defined by signs saying " Haven Gebied". This type of Police is a bunch of bad ass, they are never friendly and will confront you when they see you. The plates that defines the harbour are in Dutch only so if you don't speak Dutch you can still claim you didn't know. In general they will send you away (sometimes escorted) but while they can call a judge to confiscate your gear they rarely do it because of the massive amount of paperwork it involves. Be polite and explain you didn't know, being a wise-guy will get detained for interrogation up to 12 hours.

Railway stations are also on the list things not to do without approval. While some station officials don't mind you taking photographs it's not the same everywhere and there is still an old law in force that prohibits photographing inside railway stations because of the risk of espionage (it's old and it's stupid these days but if they want they can go on this law to get you). Taking photographs without tripod is generally OK but using a tripod might attract attention because it can obstruct passage. Approval can be asked and is rarely denied if it's not for commercial reasons. In larger stations the law and order is done by the Railway Police which have the same rights and duties as the regular police.

And for the rest, if you are on public grounds they cannot force you to stop photographing, confiscated your gear or ask you to destroy delete your photographs.
 
PHinSD said:
What nonsense. The [United] States is quite civilized. Even if you broke in to a fenced, guarded, and posted classified military installation, it is quite unlikely that you would be shot.
Click to expand...
The claim that in the US you get shot immidiately if you just happen to trespass somewhere is wildly exaggerated, but it's not as far fetched as it may sound. The Castle Doctrine allows a house owner to kill a violent intruder - " [it gives] a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack".

Obviously nobody would accuse Christopher or any photographer here of imminent violent attack even in today's hysteria laden times, so we should be reasonably safe.
 
"Castle Doctrine" is a little misleading.

Simply stated, one has the right to protect his life and property or the life and property of another using all reasonable means including the use of deadly force if necessary. However, one's use of force must be proportional to the threat. Generally speaking, if somebody tries to punch you, you can punch back to stop them. If somebody uses a weapon against you, you can use a weapon to stop him. If somebody uses a gun against you, you can use a gun to stop him. This does NOT mean you can simply use a gun to shoot anybody who comes into your house. You have to be in a situation where there is no other reasonable alternative.

However, because one's home is presumed to be a place of ultimate safety, a person who comes into your house without your permission can be assumed to be a threat. You can then use stronger measures to protect your own safety. This STILL does not give you the right to come into your house because there is that concept of "proportional threat."

For instance, if you are a 6 foot tall adult man, a 10 year old child who wanders into your house would NOT normally be a threat. It would be reasonable for a man in that situation to simply grab the kid by the arm and unceremoniously usher him out the door but it would NOT be reasonable to shoot him. On the other hand, it might be reasonable for an 80 year old woman to use deadly force against a teenager who came into her house but, even then, there are limits.

The old woman would have to tell the intruder to leave. If possible, she should call the police. If she is able, she could try to escape to another part of the house. Before she unloads that double-barrel shotgun on the intruder she needs to give fair warning. But, if it can be shown that such conditions have been met, deadly force can be used in a situation like this.

The "Castle Doctrine" does not give somebody the right to shoot anybody who comes into their house. It simply provides a list of conditions under which a person may protect his life and property in case of intrusion.

The difference is pretty subtle.
 
Uncle Goose said:
Film or cards may only be deleted if it's proven they are part of a crime.
Click to expand...

Surely the images would be evidence in this situation. In the UK, destruction of evidence is a serious crime in itself. I expect it is the same in Belgium.


Steve.
 
Steve,

I'm thinking it refers to destruction after conviction.

Here, I would think that pictures which were obtained illegally, like child porn, or a sensitive military installation, would be disposed of if they served no further purpose as evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Krzys said:
Haha, he was wrong to take my film (technically) though he could easily up me and call the police. I was (and still am) confident that I would not get fined unless police became involved.
Click to expand...

If I were you I and the security agent wouldn't accept both an apology and voluntary movement off of their private property, I would have specifically requested that they called the police.
 
Anscojohn said:
I was forbidden to take pictures at an oil refinery in Philadelphia in the middle 1960s. So, what's new!?
Click to expand...

Well, if you haven't noticed... what's new since the 1960s:

Man walked on the moon
The Vietnam War ended
Nixon resigned

I could go on, and on...
 
I've lived in the US for way too long to suggest, that Americans may shoot each other at will or for ridiculous reasons. I just wanted to point out where the "those mercans shoot you if you walk on their ground"-meme comes from. If you read about about legal gun ownership in California, this "Castle Doctrine" is specifically mentioned, so it's not dead law or something. Obviously the meme is about as funny as the endless "Germans are all Nazis", "French/Italians are surrender monkeys" and "Eastern europeans are all commies" memes.

Anscojohn said:
I was forbidden to take pictures at an oil refinery in Philadelphia in the middle 1960s. So, what's new!?
Click to expand...
I had no problem taking night shots of Hoover dam in Spring 2003, 1 1/2 years after 9/11 and shortly after the US/UK invasion into Irak. Several years later, everybody seems to go crazy about photographers, especially the Brits, but also the US to some extent (from what I read here). (there was a url link here which no longer exists) (there was a url link here which no longer exists) I keep reading here lately, I did not run across these two years ago. Makes me wonder, what's new :confused:
 
I think we have now established the fact in this thread that one can, in America, disregard a "keep off the grass" sign, and maybe not be shot. Glad that's cleared up.
 
JBrunner said:
I think we have now established the fact in this thread that one can, in America, disregard a "keep off the grass" sign, and maybe not be shot. Glad that's cleared up.
Click to expand...

Does that include minor flesh wounds?

Just asking .

Matt
 
MattKing said:
Does that include minor flesh wounds?

Just asking .

Matt
Click to expand...

Jason seems to have been fully-inclusive in his statement... so I would assume the answer to your question is, "yes". What might not be included, however, are contusions and concussions resulting from a swinging baseball bat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register