| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Long Beach Cops To Be Art Critics
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 9:42 AM on 08.15.11 |
->> "Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures "with no apparent esthetic value" is within Long Beach Police Department policy"
http://www.lbpost.com/life/greggory/12188 |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 11:20 AM on 08.15.11 |
->> Hmmm... maybe the Long Beach Police Department will begin looking for recruits with a a liberal arts/art history background instead of a law enforcement major or experience in law enforcement.
Could be just the ticket for out of work photographers. When one goes on a "shoot" however, it will be an entirely different meaning....
:)
M |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:26 PM on 08.15.11 |
| ->> Interesting to note that one of the non-criminal behaviors that is to be reported is asking about an establishments hours of operation. Really? |
|
Mike McLaughlin, Photographer
|
Neptune City | NJ | USA | Posted: 1:20 PM on 08.15.11 |
->> I think this is a great policy and should be enacted everywhere!
If they arrested all those taking pictures "with no apparent esthetic value", it'd get rid of a lot of the GWC's cutting into my business! ;P
Though, admittedly, I might get busted on occasion too. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 2:05 PM on 08.15.11 |
| ->> So much for shooting film. |
|
Christian Hafer, Photographer
|
Wayne | Pa | USA | Posted: 3:07 PM on 08.15.11 |
->> Just another over reaction and the progression of a "police state" in the US.
Thank god I carry around laws and regulations when on the street shooting. Sometimes that isn't even enough and this seems to be a golden pass for cops to shut down anyone they want on their EXTENSIVE knowledge of the craft.
I remember when I was 14 and running around Chicago or Denver snapping away and never caught any crap. I wonder what its like to kids these days? |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 3:13 PM on 08.15.11 |
->> I know I'm gonna get grilled for this, but I don't think this one's really a big deal. Mainly because:
"After running Wolff's driver's license, [Deputy] Kahn left the scene without ordering Wolff to desist." |
|
Christian Hafer, Photographer
|
Wayne | Pa | USA | Posted: 3:26 PM on 08.15.11 |
->> Bradly - While that is true that is one instance and I can say I have my info run multiple time, jotted down in notepads and tapped into laptops. Some end the process there and some continue to "grill". I doubt that is going to be the typical result...
I find most police are cool about it but ,like life in general, some are just D*cks. I feel like this loophole gives them a right to push around people for no reason.
Just flat disappointing. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 5:39 PM on 08.15.11 |
->> Christian - Where in the article does it say the photographer was "pushed around" or the cop was in any way rude, uncordial or unprofessional?
Sounds to me like the cop was simply investigating someone who was photographing an oil refinery, which, by the way, are considered terrorist targets. And, let's face it, you just don't often see people wandering around oil refineries taking photos.
Finally, when the cop learned the photographer's actions were completely harmless, he left the scene without ordering the photographer to stop taking pictures. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 5:54 PM on 08.15.11 |
->> "Sounds to me like the cop was simply investigating someone who was photographing an oil refinery"
Unless there's a law that prohibits photographing oil refineries then there's no reason for a policeman to question anyone doing it. This sort of thing will inevitably be used by police to hassle anyone with a camera, news shooter, artist or whatever.
It reeks. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 6:30 PM on 08.15.11 |
->> Typically a Terry stop would require reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. Now, under this direction, that boundary is being pushed. Taking photos is not a crime or directly related to any crime (excepting forms of pornography, etc)...
Technically, under a terry stop, you and all your property are under seizure, and you may not leave if you just want to. You may be released at the officer's discretion, but what it comes down to is you're under a form of arrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 6:53 PM on 08.15.11 |
->> Jim - while you're correct that photographing an oil refinery isn't a crime, we also need to recognize that law enforcement must often engage individuals who might appear suspicious under certain circumstances.
I remember once in 2004 Vice President Dick Cheney was in town, vacationing at his home in Jackson, Wyo. From prior experience, I knew when he would be heading back to Washington, D.C., and I wanted to get a photograph of Air Force Two flying in front of the Grand Teton just after takeoff. I set up on a public road about 2-3 miles south of Jackson Hole Airport in Grand Teton National Park with a 300mm f/2.8 and a 2x converter, and waited.
About 20 minutes later a black SUV pulled up, and out came a pair of very large and very intimidating-looking Secret Service agents, who politely asked me what I was doing, to which I responded I was with the Jackson Hole News&Guide and wanted to photograph Air Force Two taking off. They asked to see my ID, and I obliged along with my credentials, and at the same time politely asked if I was doing something wrong, because as far as I knew I was on a public road on public land (Grand Teton National Park).
They politely replied that, no, I wasn't doing anything wrong, however they told me they had received a radio call of a guy "with a big bazooka-looking thing" on the side of the road south of the airport runway, and they decided to check it out. They then asked for my business card, because they wanted to order prints "if I got a cool shot." They saw my photo the next day in the paper and ordered a bunch of reprints for their whole detail.
Did I contact NPPA and ask that they write a letter to the Secret Service saying it's not a crime to photograph on the side of a public road in a national park? Nope. Those guys were just doing their job, and when they saw I was harmless, they rightly let me go about my business. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 7:49 PM on 08.15.11 |
| ->> Detaining and talking to someone are very different things... |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 10:24 PM on 08.15.11 |
->> "...law enforcement must often engage individuals who might appear suspicious..."
I'm sorry but my taking a picture, or your taking a picture, of anything, repeat anything, is not "suspicious".
If you or I, or anyone else, want to photograph something and we/they have the legal right to be where we are then that's it, no question, we should be able do it and do it without question or hassle by the police or anyone else.
I don't want some cop having a bad day with nothing else to do figure that he can have a little fun "f**king with the photographer"...
And some will do it for just that reason. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 12:40 AM on 08.16.11 |
->> Jim - A grown man sitting alone watching and taking photos of a playground full of children in a public park day after day isn't illegal, either, however I would hope the police would question him if a parent felt it was suspicious.
Hanging out in the the bushes in the public alleyway behind my house at 2:30 a.m. dressed in all black and a ski mask isn't illegal, but I would hope the police would find and question the guy if my neighbor called about it.
So yes, I would hope the cops would question someone hanging around taking photos of a place that is considered by the U.S. government to be a terrorist target if it is out of the ordinary for someone to do so (which is what I believe is meant by a place having "no apparent esthetic value" - a poor choice of words, in my opinion). And if that person was found to be harmless, I would expect (not hope) the cops to go about their business and let the photographer go about his.
Finally, just because you don't "want" some cop having a bad day with nothing else to do to f**k with you doesn't mean it won't happen. Cops like that don't need a reason. They'll do it simply because they're a dick. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 12:46 AM on 08.16.11 |
| ->> @Israel - The only procedural thing the Long Beach cop did with that shooter that was different from what the Secret Service did with me was actually call in his ID. However, by the legal definition of "detaining" someone, I suppose I was detained as well as I certainly did not believe I was "free to leave" during my 2-3 minute encounter with the Secret Service. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 1:50 AM on 08.16.11 |
->> A phone call about you having a bazooka, in the flight path of Air Force One = reasonable suspicion that someone could be a terrorist. It does warrant a Terry stop.
Having a camera does not create reasonable suspicion that you could be a terrorist. It does not warrant a Terry stop. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 8:53 AM on 08.16.11 |
->> Israel - The guy was not questioned just for "having a camera."
There's a big difference between simply having a camera and the act of taking photographs of a known terrorist target in a place where no one is generally seen taking photographs. While both are perfectly legal, the latter, in my opinion, could arouse suspicion. |
|
Christian Hafer, Photographer
|
Wayne | Pa | USA | Posted: 9:23 AM on 08.16.11 |
->> @Bradly
I fully understand your position but one has to admit that there isn't anything odd about taking photographs and simple discourse with the police and the photographer is fine.
The whole point of this is that the police in LBC are taking it upon themselves to determine what is and what isn't viable photography. And that is simply not right.
I have no problem being asked what it is that I am doing by the police and I am as nice as can be.But more times than not they know less about the rights and laws than I do. And this is just one more reason why this WILL cause more issues down the road.
And we all agree the police are vital and them looking into things are important but I must stress that this particular "clause" is not healthy. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 9:51 AM on 08.16.11 |
| ->> If it becomes a crime to make photographs with no aesthetic value then I am going to have to get a VERY good lawyer! |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 10:16 AM on 08.16.11 |
->> @Christian -
"The whole point of this is that the police in LBC are taking it upon themselves to determine what is and what isn't viable photography."
No, they are not. The LBPD did not tell this photographer to stop shooting because they determined the subject matter wasn't "viable photography." For that matter, they didn't tell this photographer to stop shooting at all.
Again, I think "no apparent esthetic value" is a poor choice of words. They are not being art critics. Rather, they are questioning people who are shooting potential terrorist targets that generally aren't photographed by the greater public. And from what it sounds like, once they determine the photographer is harmless the cops rightly let them go about their business. |
|
Christian Hafer, Photographer
|
Wayne | Pa | USA | Posted: 11:14 AM on 08.16.11 |
| ->> Sorry I equate "no apparent esthetic value" to mean "sh*tty photos" or "not viable" to someone that isn't a photographer or understand it. |
|
Kevin Bartram, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Antioch / San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 12:06 PM on 08.16.11 |
->> "Detaining and talking to someone are very different things..."
They are actually very much the same thing. I've been stopped by police more times than I can remember while working and although I was not doing anything illegal I never felt that I was free to just walk away. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 12:35 PM on 08.16.11 |
| ->> I'm fine with the concept of an officer asking questions - right up until they require ID. Investigating suspicious activity is part of police work. That's fine. BUT, until you do something illegal you should not have to present ID for the police to run through a computer. I have a real issue with that. No different than in the state of Ohio an officer does not have the ability to search your vehicle without probable cause during a traffic stop. So, even if I have nothing to hide when I'm stopped for speeding, they still don't get to see the inside of my trunk. Asking questions is fine. As long as you are not required to present ID (unless there's a law on the books requiring it in that state or municipality). And, as long as you are allowed to continue if, after questioning, there is no probable cause to warrant an arrest. But, investigating suspicious behavior is an important part of police work. And, as mentioned, if a person is hiding in the bushes taking photos of kids on a playground it may be legal but it's suspicious. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 2:22 PM on 08.16.11 |
->> Kevin-
I'm not talking about what you "feel" when civil authorities are present; I'm talking about what is taking place legally. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 3:31 PM on 08.16.11 |
->> @John - There is no law requiring you to obtain, possess or carry identification.
@Israel - Again, according to the article Jim linked to, "legally, a police detention has occurred when 'a reasonable individual' in that circumstance would believe he or she is not free to leave" |
|
Kevin Bartram, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Antioch / San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 6:47 PM on 08.16.11 |
->> Israel - My feeling, or believing, that I am not free to just walk away from a police officer who wishes to question me is the definition of being detained.
When I have been in similar situations but the person questioning me is a private security guard or citizen I have often simply walked away, after politely telling them what I was doing. I don't believe I have that same freedom to leave when questioned by police, thus I have been detained. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 7:28 PM on 08.16.11 |
->> What is your point? If you were illegally detained, great. I'm happy for you. It's irrelevant to the point of this discussion.
The point of this discussion is that the "esthetic" of your images is not relevant to whether detaining you is legal or not.
I'm signing off for a while. See you guys later. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 7:47 PM on 08.16.11 |
->> Israel -
"The point of this discussion is that the 'esthetic' of your images is not relevant to whether detaining you is legal or not."
You're right. It's not relevant. However, the LBPD's policy of "aesthetic value" pertains to the photographer's supposed subject matter, not the images made of the subject matter. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 1:02 AM on 08.17.11 |
->> it is a ludicrous policy. Forget the whole "aesthetic" angle ... the policy is based purely on the paranoid assumption that photography is a suspicious activity.
I've stated in several different discussions this exact point. We need to get over that state of mind. There has never been any evidence that any terrorist activity has ever been preceded by photographic reconnaissance.
Creating a state of fear where photography is a scapegoat is a red herring. Photography is in no way a suspicious activity and giving the public any impression that by investigating and detaining photography in public spaces law enforcement officials are contributing to a false sense of security and starting a downward spiral in our constitutionally protecting freedoms.
I've already been told in one discussion that what we all just need to do is smile, give the nice officer our ID (after all, if we're not doing anything wrong, we have nothing to hide) and move on. Except that does not work in many cases. Clearly in Long Beach the officer ran a check on the ID and then let the photographer continue, but the department policy is wrong-headed in the first place and needs to be ended. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 8:25 AM on 08.17.11 |
->> Good response, Sean.
Listen, if you feel really strongly that a officer that wants to check your ID is checking because of what you are photographing - well, it's going to be tough to fight because at the end of the day law enforcement isn't going to give up the right to ask to see ID. You can fight the policy, but ultimately if they want to see ID, you're going to have to provide it.
So, be friendly. Give them what they want and then they'll go away. Fight the policy at the top of the department not at the bottom. The more you resist showing an officer an ID, the greater the chance you'll end up in a ugly situation.
Don't misunderstand what I'm typing - I totally get it - but you'll have no chance of winning the fight at the officer level. When I was younger, I was more than willing to fight the fight, too. Problem was, I was fighting at the wrong level. You have to go to management if you're going to have any real impact. IF you STILL want to engage the officer, understand you're the one that wants to escalate the confrontation.
By the way,if the officer points out terrorism as the reason, you can point out terrorists seem to prefer to use cell phones to make images based on previous investigations. Seems it attracts less attention that way.....
M |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:08 AM on 08.17.11 |
->> Hell, they don't even need to bother using their cell phones....
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=google+maps+long+beach+oil+refinery&ll=33.80825,-118.2407&spn=0.000071,0.084543&sll=33.812493,-118.200783&sspn=0.148256,0.102545&fb=1&gl=us&vpsrc=6&fll=33.808678,-118.238125&fspn=0.041364,0.084543&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.80828,-118.240808&panoid=Hg0y60PLAKZfIDWEIWk60A&cbp=12,19.28,,0,-7.86
Michael - while the police have the right to ask for your ID you are not obligated to provide it unless you are being lawfully detained. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 10:00 AM on 08.17.11 |
| ->> and I concede that the street level is not the place to fight this. I concede you're better off just giving the officer your ID and hoping he/she will be as reasonable as the officer in Long Beach was. This is why the NPPA is fighting this at the administrative level. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 10:13 AM on 08.17.11 |
->> "There has never been any evidence that any terrorist activity has ever been preceded by photographic reconnaissance."
If we are going to bring precedent into this, there was no prior evidence that 19 suicide jihadists would hijack airplanes in a highly-coordinated effort and crash them into buildings. Just because there isn't evidence of something doesn't mean it's beyond the scope of possibility.
On another note, Sean, what would you say to the example of the grown man who is repeatedly seen taking photos of young children on the playground in a public park? Are these circumstances not suspicious and worthily of questioning by the police? How would they know if the person has a prior record of endangering children if they don't ask for and run an ID? |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 10:26 AM on 08.17.11 |
->> we're comparing apples and oranges. hijacking aircraft is illegal ... if law enforcement saw evidence that someone was going to hijack an airplane I would hope they would investigate an illegal act.
Photography is not an illegal act and yet we're seeing policies and actions that treat it as an illegal act.
A grown man photographing children in the park sounds like a newspaper photographer in dire need of a weather feature.
We're talking about a policy that is paranoid and constitutionally indefensible ... police officers need to be able to use judgment, but when the department sets a policy that says all photography not deemed aesthetic is suspicious we have a problem.
Clearly if a parent at the park calls the police and describes the scenario you describe (lone man, no children, multiple days) then an officer should be allowed to use that judgment to investigate, but it's not a fair comparison. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 10:28 AM on 08.17.11 |
->> "there was no prior evidence that 19 suicide jihadists would hijack airplanes"
Actually there was, see the 9/11 Commission's report. |
|
Ted Aguirre, Photographer
|
Covina | CA | | Posted: 11:06 AM on 08.17.11 |
| ->> Alot of people have their whole idea of laws twisted and what rights they have with an officer. In its simplest form, an Officer does not have a right to stop and detain you (meaning you are not free to leave) unless they have reasonable suspicion (when the Officer believes that a crime/law violation has occurred, is about to occur or is occurring). Reasonable suspicion is based on the officers training, experience and the circumstances surrounding the situation. Still confused? Basically, if you “look” like a gang member walking down the street, an Officer can’t stop you based on that fact alone. But if an Officer is a gang expert, sees a known gangster on the street, who he knows is probation and possibly in violation of his probation, he can stop, detain and investigate or question that individual regarding their activity. The same is said with a photographer and his camera. An Officer cannot stop you from taking a picture of an Oil refinery. But if the photographer is taking pictures of the refinery, past normal hours of operations or when activity is expected, has made it on the property that is locked without permission and is trespassing, then yes it is likely the photographer will be stopped and investigated regarding their activity. If a photographer simply explains their business, cooperates with the Officer, I highly doubt there would be an issue and both of you will continue with your day. But if you as a photographer are defiant and believe you know the law better than the Officer, then trust me that will be an uphill battle. One last note, in the events following the attacks of September 11th. Police Officers, received hundreds of calls daily from Citizens, who truly believed that possible terrorist are taking pictures or videos of high rises, landmarks etc. Guess what, when Officers receive those types of calls, they must respond and investigate as well. Many responses and stops of people with cameras/videos are largely citizen generated and not purely the act of an Officer deciding to deprive a photographer of their artist right. With that being said, Terrorist have been known to document security measures of places they plan to attack through the use to video and cameras, so they can study. This is the whole reason police departments have a policy and procedures for terrorist activity, such as in Long Beach, as a security measure to keep us safe from terrorist and is not meant to target photographers as a whole. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 11:12 AM on 08.17.11 |
->> Not a fair comparison? Really?
Some are saying that photography, ANY photography in a public place isn't suspicious, and I'm saying under certain circumstances it is. We clearly disagree on this point, and obviously opinions differ between photographers and law enforcement.
My point is that, given the reality of the world we live in, we probably won't sway law enforcement's opinion that much. There's always going to be gray areas.
What we should focus on are the issues that are black and white, like the laws dictating where photography is legal. When those are violated, that's where the fight should be. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Southern California | CA | USA | Posted: 2:25 AM on 08.19.11 |
->> Ted Aguirre,
Nice post, keep an eye out for those photographers with furtive moves... |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 5:24 AM on 08.19.11 |
| ->> This whole notion of photography by terrorists lacks common sense (Something many police officers aren't taught). Does anyone really think that terrorists are going to stand out in the open and shoot pictures or video of their targets? Of course not. They're going to do it clandestinely or better yet use Google maps where they can view every angle of the target. Police departments need to start getting sued over this sort of detainment. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 5:37 AM on 08.19.11 |
| ->> Furthermore, let's assume that the person that the LBPD stopped had bad intentions. It's very unlikely that a police officer could determine his intentions by asking a few questions while detaining him, so what is the point other than intimidation? |
|
Daniel Putz, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 8:35 AM on 08.19.11 |
->> To make it look like he's doing his job? Wouldn't be the first time it's happened init?
(lets just say there is more than one way to look at this) |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 8:55 AM on 08.19.11 |
->> "Furthermore, let's assume that the person that the LBPD stopped had bad intentions. It's very unlikely that a police officer could determine his intentions by asking a few questions while detaining him, so what is the point other than intimidation?"
Actually, you'd be surprised. Real life is not like TV/movies - you'd be amazed how many people that are up-to-no-good cave in rather quickly. They don't remain calm, they panic. Go for a ride-along with a law enforcement officer that does traffic stops with an emphasis to look for drugs. Amazing how stupid criminals are. Not everyone is a highly trained international operative. So, yes, asking simple questions does, in fact, lead officers to uncover something.
So while I agree with the notion that there's no link between picture taking and terrorism, I disagree with the notion that police asking questions of people behaving suspiciously can lead to said people doing or saying something that leads to discovery of illegal activity. I can't speak to terrorism, but it certainly is effective for other criminal behavior. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 11:25 AM on 08.19.11 |
->> @Ted -
"But if the photographer is taking pictures of the refinery, past normal hours of operations or when activity is expected, has made it on the property that is locked without permission and is trespassing, then yes it is likely the photographer will be stopped and investigated regarding their activity. If a photographer simply explains their business, cooperates with the Officer, I highly doubt there would be an issue and both of you will continue with your day."
For the purpose of this discussion, we are talking about taking photos of things in plain view from public places. If someone is trespassing on private property it is reasonable suspicion for an officer to make contact, whether or not the person is taking photos. And they'd probably be charged with trespassing. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 4:00 PM on 08.19.11 |
->> John,
I've been dealing with the police and doing ride-alongs for 30 years. No terrorist is going to break down and admit that he's planning to blow something up while being questioned about taking pictures.
@ Ted Without a doubt, the police have a tough and stressful job, but this attitude "But if you as a photographer are defiant and believe you know the law better than the Officer, then trust me that will be an uphill battle." is really the problem. Many police officers think that they are the law instead of enforcer's of it. My experience has been that many of them absolutely don't know the law when it comes to media and what they don't know, they make up. And even when you show them the penal code in black and white, it often infuriates them and they refuse to follow the law that they swore to uphold. It should not be an "uphill battle" to get a police officer to follow the law. |
|
Jack Kurtz, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | United States | Posted: 5:00 PM on 08.19.11 |
->> "Amazing how stupid criminals are. "
It's easy to be a Criminal. It's making the leap to Master Criminal that trips up most of them. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Francis Vachon, Photographer
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:53 AM on 08.21.11 |
->> you can avoid all of this by carrying a box of donuts. throw them out like confetti and the cops will forget you are there. just kidding...in all seriousness as someone who has been in the business for 37 years mr. terrell's statement
"My experience has been that many of them absolutely don't know the law when it comes to media and what they don't know, they make up. And even when you show them the penal code in black and white, it often infuriates them and they refuse to follow the law that they swore to uphold."
is without a doubt the truest thing I have ever read. those of you out there purporting to KNOW what working news photographers deal with day in and day out with the police are nothing short of clueless. a fifth grader usually has a better grasp of the law then the normal beat cop. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 9:12 PM on 08.21.11 |
->> I think, to expand a bit, most beat cops have a very good grasp of the basic statutes for their jurisdiction. They know the speed limit, they know the DUI limits, they know what murder is and the difference between a robbery and a larceny ... but they don't know the larger scope, especially constitutional law which is really what we're dealing with here. And when they don't know those aspects they revert to their basic training, which is that they ARE the law and they have the authority to order folks around.
The big problem with the policy in LB is that it gives these officers blanket approval from their bosses to violate the basics of the constitution.
The policy needs to go and this department, and oh so many others, need to do a better job of training their officers. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|