| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2005 07:52:07 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Show me the little old lady that fell down in the middle of the train tracks -- I'll take pictures the whole time the train's coming and not think twice. |
How sweet.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 07:56:25 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by vince31874:
Originally posted by deapee:
Show me the little old lady that fell down in the middle of the train tracks -- I'll take pictures the whole time the train's coming and not think twice. |
How sweet. |
That was my thought as well. deapee is a good example of someone who I would strongly disagree with about what is appropriate to photograph, but I will vigorously defend his right to photograph as he sees fit, even if that is as distasteful as he seems to want to make it. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:00:25 PM · #128 |
While you're all deciding what you think is appropriate to portray in photos, consider this:
Kent State
And tell me whether you think you don't want someone taking a photo of your kid....
(Go deapee! You rock!) |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:04:49 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
While you're all deciding what you think is appropriate to portray in photos, consider this:
Kent State
And tell me whether you think you don't want someone taking a photo of your kid....
(Go deapee! You rock!) |
I will tell you what....
If you have an old grand mother walking across a railroad crossing, and she falls down, I would hope people will try to help her out, instead of whipping a camera out to watch the train roll over her.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 20:32:01.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:05:13 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Show me the little old lady that fell down in the middle of the train tracks -- I'll take pictures the whole time the train's coming and not think twice. |
Deapee!!! Picture this as a scenario. YOU are injured, incapable of helping yourself,,, a train is speeding in your direction and then... GOD YES,,, help is here... No wait... what's he doing... setting up a tripod...He's gonna what... take pictures of me before and after the train rips my body to shreds???........... oh that's ok,,,,,its his constitutional right!!!
I'm sure you would be just fine with that scenario, or would you???
Just a thought...
Ray |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:16:47 PM · #131 |
wow...I just can't get away from this post...lol. It keeps pulling me back in!
What comes around...goes around! I'm sure these people that want to take photographs wouldn't be singin the same tune if it was their loved one being exploited.
Right on Dudes...Fight the Man...!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:22:39 PM · #132 |
I will deliberately not venture into the moral area of if the photos should or should not be taken.
Here in Australia the law is very similar to over in the US, certainly for something like this. Basically the photographer did have a legal right to shoot the photos and the cop had no legal right to make him delete them.
Here the cop could decide to confiscate things if he thought they were genuine evidence, but he would not have the right to take the camera, only the memory card/film, as the actualy camera has no bearing at all on the evidence. In either case, with a good lawyer, you'd have your memory card/camera back in a matter of days, as once confiscated the police can make a copy of the photos and would have no legal right to hold the "evidence" longer than that, especially as the photographer had committed no crime.
With hindsight, always a wonderful thing, if I were now in a similar situation (lets say taking a photo of a building to avoid the moral issue) I would do the following:
1) Either get a witness or record the conversation (my phone has that ability).
2) State very clearly that I felt intimidated, believed I should not be forced to delete the photos, make sure I had the cop's details.
3) As I do not know exactly where the line is on where he can arrest me if I do not follow his instructions, I would then DELETE the photos. That way you can not find yourself suddenly on the wrong side of an arrest.
4) I would then take the recording, or witness statement, and lodge a formal complaint against the office concerned. (In Australia that tends to be the way people go, rather than trying to instantly sue).
Sure, you've lost the photos, but you have not risked arrest, having anything confiscated, and the cop is likely to head for some retraining as he quite obviously handled the situation very badly indeed. Coolhar's version of how this could have been handled far better by the cop is excellent .... and his training should enable him to handle a situation that well, even on the spur of the moment.
Unfortunately Baddboy's comments along the lines of stuffing the guy up by deliberately ensuring his camera got lost for monthis tied up in legal red tape, and then the photographer get constantly dragged into court, is exactly the attitude that causes many people to distrust the police. It sounds to me like some serious retraining in customer relations would not go amiss there either. It would be akin to someone putting in an unjustful complaint against an officer as they knew it would take them 10 minutes to write the complaint, but stuff up things for the office as he has to answer questions from a senior officer, risks a note on his record etc etc etc ... basically all very petty.
On a lighter note ...
Talking of stuffing people around for fun (not that I advocate such a thing), I recently read this on how to stuff up banks and tax departments (the first is my favourite). This was a tongue in cheek article and should not be taken seriously.....
1) On any document where it has a section marked "Do not write here, official use only" run over it with a white candle. Rubber stamps and even pens are then going to have a real problem using that area ;)
2) Overpay your bill by 10c. Later, call and say that you realised you have over paid and demand your extra money back.
3) Underpay your bill by 10c. Their automated systems, to balance their books, will then keep demanding the extra 10c. Pay it eventually, complete with making a lot of noise about how silly it was for them to go to so much trouble for 10c.
;)
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:23:02 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
wow...I just can't get away from this post...lol. It keeps pulling me back in!
What comes around...goes around! I'm sure these people that want to take photographs wouldn't be singin the same tune if it was their loved one being exploited.
Right on Dudes...Fight the Man...! |
'scuse me? Who's being exploited? |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:27:08 PM · #134 |
Obviously the person that was laying in the street...the grandmother ran over at the train crossing, and the woman that was just raped and shot by some gangbanger!
Im sure someone would like to photograph that too.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:28:52 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Obviously the person that was laying in the street...the grandmother ran over at the train crossing, and the woman that was just raped and shot by some gangbanger!
Im sure someone would like to photograph that too. |
Exploited by whom??????? |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:35:20 PM · #136 |
Like Ive stated before...those who seriously want to take pictures of carnage have issues!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:40:20 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
I am a police officer, and happen to be an Accident Investigator/Reconstructionist.
If it was me, and I heard the photographer giving the officer a hard time after being asked nicely to stop. I would have immediately seized the camera. Obtained a search warrant for the camera and the images captured, to be used as evidence. The photographer would not have seen those images for months/years, depending on the length of the investigation/trial. Then since the photographer was there, and personally photographed the images. I would subpeona him to all the court hearings, meaning he would have to miss work and not get paid.
Police Officers are sworn to uphold the law, but this officer was just upholding a higher set of laws, the law of humanity. ...Even if he did, I'm sure he would not care, knowing he did what was morally right.
|
Good Lord. I read this whole thing. Bad I am worried for your career. You have as much in public admitted that you would resort to harrasment to seize private property and you would label your actions as gathering evidence. You are not within your rights to 'tie up' that process nor harrass the photog by subpoenia, in fact, that is above and beyond your job.
In this scenario - not another one, where your department should compensate me for my time and expertise because you cannot get your own paid labor on the scene fast enough - In this scenario, the photographer was asked to delete the pictures or ordered to delete them, the officer WAY overstepped his authority, simply by asking that they be deleted. Your answer to not asking to have them deleted indicates that you would fabricate a reason to confiscate the images and harrass the photog. When we start letting our law enforcement officials do these types of things we are on the verge of having our police officers become SS or KGB and no one is safe from any authoritarian figures.
You need retraining in what you think you can do on the force under the guise of acting as an officer of the law. I dare you to show your Internal Investigation Unit your viewpoint of what you think you could do under those circumstances and see what they recommend. Yes, you have the right and the DUTY to seize evidence. You do not have the right or DUTY to fabricate a reason to prevent someone from taking pictures of a scene, just because they are an ambulance chaser.
edit: dang spelling - and for the record, I have many, many friends who are Police Officers, I work with the local DARE program and have even ridden with them.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 20:47:18.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:41:56 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Like Ive stated before...those who seriously want to take pictures of carnage have issues! |
Really? And if the American soldiers who opened the concentration camps in Nazi Germany had all obeyed orders what would we show to the idiots who now claim that the Holocaust never happened. Sick SOB's! How dare they record the atrocities of our history!
I think we should ban all photos of aborted fetuses, lung scans of cancer patients, and nasty pictures of the mangled wrecks of drunk drivers!!!
After all, only the sworn officers of the peace have the right to witness and record such things. They protect us! They protect us from the things we will see, but (naughty, naughty!) must not take pictures of.
I think anyone who wants to limit the rights of the people who want to take pictures of carnage has serious issues. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:43:21 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
While you're all deciding what you think is appropriate to portray in photos, consider this:
Kent State
And tell me whether you think you don't want someone taking a photo of your kid....
(Go deapee! You rock!) |
I for one would not want that photo if that was my child... In this instance I would prefer a photo of the individual(s) responsible for this atrocity.
As an aside, maybe its just me... but to applaud deapee's lack of consideration for the poor old grandmother about to be run over by a train, is in my view not really something I would be proud of... but hey you are entitled to your views. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:44:17 PM · #140 |
I bet that would win the current challenge in a heartbeat...
//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_submit.php?CHALLENGE_ID=307
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:44:33 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Like Ive stated before...those who seriously want to take pictures of carnage have issues! |
I donĂ¢€™t even want to see carnage much less photograph it, but that is a different issue then who gets to decide what others can and can not photograph. When the police take it upon themselves to judge what should and should not be photographed we are going down a path that we can not afford to go down.
There are some times when photos of carnage are important, the camera can be witness to atrocities. Who gets to decide what can and can not be photographed, you?
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 20:45:44. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:48:14 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by KaDi:
While you're all deciding what you think is appropriate to portray in photos, consider this:
Kent State
And tell me whether you think you don't want someone taking a photo of your kid....
(Go deapee! You rock!) |
I for one would not want that photo if that was my child... In this instance I would prefer a photo of the individual(s) responsible for this atrocity.
As an aside, maybe its just me... but to applaud deapee's lack of consideration for the poor old grandmother about to be run over by a train, is in my view not really something I would be proud of... but hey you are entitled to your views. |
Yeah, right. I'm applauding old ladies being run over by trains....While you ignore the rest of what he said and the intent of his post. In which, by the way, the old lady isn't actually run over. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:48:35 PM · #143 |
Whoa! I agree with Arcanist but he missed one even more startling point. Bad says:
"Police Officers are sworn to uphold the law, but this officer was just upholding a higher set of laws, the law of humanity. ...Even if he did, I'm sure he would not care, knowing he did what was morally right."
Holy shit! Think about what it means if Police where really our "morality police". Bad - you are sworn to uphold the law and only the law. Man, this is scary.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:52:47 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
As far as all the cop haters, You will definitely be calling when you need us. We will still show up, despite your ignorance. We fight what you fear! |
Please...I know quite a few police officers and am best friends with one. At certain times, you need to just lay back and let discussions go by without raising your voice.
Clearly, you're trying to turn this thread into how just a police officer really is. You couldn't have started your plea at a different time.
As far as when I need you, you showing up, you damn well better. My taxes pay your salary and it is YOUR JOB to show up when I need you. Just like if you walked into my work and started calling me names, I'd kindly ask you to please leave because you're being disorderly. Don't act like you're so much more holy than I because the fact of the matter is...ITS YOUR JOB and you do it BECAUSE ITS YOUR JOB!!! You picked it, so don't ask for extra credit for simply doing your job.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 08:58:25 PM · #145 |
Good Lord. I read this whole thing. Bad I am worried for your career. You have as much in public admitted that you would resort to harrasment to seize private property and you would label your actions as gathering evidence. You are not within your rights to 'tie up' that process nor harrass the photog by subpoenia, in fact, that is above and beyond your job.
In this scenario - not another one, where your department should compensate me for my time and expertise because you cannot get your own paid labor on the scene fast enough - In this scenario, the photographer was asked to delete the pictures or ordered to delete them, the officer WAY overstepped his authority, simply by asking that they be deleted. Your answer to not asking to have them deleted indicates that you would fabricate a reason to confiscate the images and harrass the photog. When we start letting our law enforcement officials do these types of things we are on the verge of having our police officers become SS or KGB and no one is safe from any authoritarian figures.
You need retraining in what you think you can do on the force under the guise of acting as an officer of the law. I dare you to show your Internal Investigation Unit your viewpoint of what you think you could do under those circumstances and see what they recommend. Yes, you have the right and the DUTY to seize evidence. You do not have the right or DUTY to fabricate a reason to prevent someone from taking pictures of a scene, just because they are an ambulance chaser.
edit: dang spelling - and for the record, I have many, many friends who are Police Officers, I work with the local DARE program and have even ridden with them. [/quote]
Dare is a great school program, you doing a ride along is nice too. That however doesn't not qualify you to decide what is right and wrong as far as my job is concerned.
Unfortunetly not all departments, as seen on TV, can afford to have a reconstructionist on duty 24/7 nor have a photographer sitting around waiting for something to happen. Therefore if we feel that a pro or amateur photographer has captured something we need. Then we have every right to ask for the photo's and or seize it until a search warrant is obtained.
A police officer can subpeona anyone that he feels can give testimony to the case in point. If the officer plans to use the photo's as evidence, he obviously has to have the person present who took them.
The point thats being missed here is that most people seem to think it's okay to do this until it is their loved one.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:04:50 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
As far as all the cop haters, You will definitely be calling when you need us. We will still show up, despite your ignorance. We fight what you fear! |
Please...I know quite a few police officers and am best friends with one. At certain times, you need to just lay back and let discussions go by without raising your voice.
Clearly, you're trying to turn this thread into how just a police officer really is. You couldn't have started your plea at a different time.
As far as when I need you, you showing up, you damn well better. My taxes pay your salary and it is YOUR JOB to show up when I need you. Just like if you walked into my work and started calling me names, I'd kindly ask you to please leave because you're being disorderly. Don't act like you're so much more holy than I because the fact of the matter is...ITS YOUR JOB and you do it BECAUSE ITS YOUR JOB!!! You picked it, so don't ask for extra credit for simply doing your job. |
We are talking about civil rights here...I have a right to my oppinion as well as others! I thought this topic was open for debate? Guess not.
You are all right...Fight the man....
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:05:20 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Dare is a great school program, you doing a ride along is nice too. That however doesn't not qualify you to decide what is right and wrong as far as my job is concerned.
Unfortunetly not all departments, as seen on TV, can afford to have a reconstructionist on duty 24/7 nor have a photographer sitting around waiting for something to happen. Therefore if we feel that a pro or amateur photographer has captured something we need. Then we have every right to ask for the photo's and or seize it until a search warrant is obtained.
A police officer can subpeona anyone that he feels can give testimony to the case in point. If the officer plans to use the photo's as evidence, he obviously has to have the person present who took them.
The point thats being missed here is that most people seem to think it's okay to do this until it is their loved one. |
I am not sure what the laws are where you practice your particular brand of vigilante "higher justice" but in the jurisdiction where I work (as a prosecutor) it is the PROSECUTOR who subpoena's any and all witnesses. Its the job of the police to investigate and submit a report regarding their findings and any charges they feel might be appropriate. It is the prosecutor's job to determine WHO is a relevant witness based on what the police submit in their report. The police HAVE NO function in either subpeona'ing a witness or compelling them to co-operate with an investigation.
If the camera had something they needed, all they need to do is ASK the person if they may have copies. If that person refuses, they may ask for a search warrant ONLY on reasonable and probable grounds, and the fact that a person was there with a camera SIMPLY isn't enough. I highly doubt you are a cop, and if, by some horrible mistake you are, I am glad you're not a cop I work with. You are frightening, your posts speak of a much deeper rooted problem than just an inflated sense of self-importance.
STOP trying to cloud this discussion with comments that are designed to only incite an emotional reaction while completely avoiding a reasoned response.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 21:08:18.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:10:24 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by frisca:
STOP trying to cloud this discussion with comments that are designed to only incite an emotional reaction while completely avoiding a reasoned response. |
I agree BADD...you are one bad police officer -- the type I'd rather see off the streets. You seem to apply your own sense of what you think justice is to your daily job. Your thinking process is flawed and if your work habits reflect those which you portray here, I, too, fear for your career...actually, not I don't -- I fear for law-abiding photographers and citizens while you still hold your position as a law enforcemtne officer.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:10:36 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
The point thats being missed here is that most people seem to think it's okay to do this until it is their loved one. |
I'll go further than this Bad. If I was in a criminal accident, bleeding to death and beer can's strewn out the back of car: I'd sign the release for any freelancer to publish the shots of my demise IN ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT. I would do the same if it were my son or my daughter.
I am not claiming my relationship with the local police gives me a degree in Law, but neither does your badge give you the authority to fabricate reasons to seize private property because of some 'higher moral authority.' Your original statement which you are now desperately trying to rationalize with a more well thought presentation of words stands. You would do anything it took to make sure that what you percieved to be 'in the right' was adhered to.
Do you really wonder why that photographer felt 'persuaded'to delete his pictures when you have bold-facedly told us yourself that if he hadn't listened and done as told to do, that you just would have made him even more miserable? I again urge you to divulge your point of view to your superiors and get thier opinions. Perhaps in fact, it is time for you to take a vacation and possibly consider another career.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:14:24 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I highly doubt you are a cop, and if, by some horrible mistake you are, I am glad you're not a cop I work with. You are frightening, your posts speak of a much deeper rooted problem than just an inflated sense of self-importance.
STOP trying to cloud this discussion with comments that are designed to only incite an emotional reaction while completely avoiding a reasoned response. |
Unfortunately, it appears he is a cop. Just Google him.
And, frisca, you're right, he is clouding the discussion with inciteful comments--while simultaneously avoiding direct questions. Hmmm.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 22:15:00. |
|
