| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2005 09:15:32 PM · #151 |
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. |
Ah, thank you, Frisca. That was the one place I had not yet dared to go, but it was screaming loudly in the hollow of my mind.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:30:25 PM · #152 |
No..Ill keep doing what I think is right. Taking photos at a time like that for no specific reason, IMO is morally wrong and I will not back down.
You can bash me all you like, personally attack me, I don't care. I will still be going to work tomorrow as I have for the past 11 years, getting paid and doing my job the best way I see fit. I have never in anyway done anything unethical. I take my job seriously and have the utmost respect for the law. What was said in here was done so to prove a point that there are always ways around everything, good or bad. That does not mean that I myself would do these things in my neighborhood.
I played the role of the devil's advocate here, simply stating things that could possibly happen. You can pick apart each line and critque it, thats fine with me.
If what I said offended people here, I'm sorry. That was not my intention. I do however have the right to my own oppinion regardless if you think it is right or wrong. I thought that the subject was posted here for debate so I gave my point of view.
Best regards,
Shawn
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:31:28 PM · #153 |
I brought this up with my buddy one night who is a cop while we were talking about cops who are 'tough guys' -- now this is quite off topic, I realize, but I'm just trying to make a point. All too often, I have been treated badly by police for various reasons, and I assure you I have NEVER lost my cool. Quite the opposite, I maintain my cool which I believe is part of the reason they (meaning the bad ones) try to get at me...
There are times when it's just that wrong day of the week -- when you are in a convenience store and if someone tried to rob the place, you just feel like you'd try to grab the guy's gun and shoot him. I'm a quite normal individual but even I get depressed to the point where I feel like that every now and then.
Now lets' say there's someone out there that is not so 'normal' who is thinking of kiling himself, so he's driving somewhere with a gun on the way to finish himself off. All of a sudden, flashing lights behind him -- no big deal, he'll had over his license and get a ticket and be on with his business. Well, as it turns out, Officer Tough Guy decides he wants to be a tough guy that day and starts mouthing off and giving the guy a hard time for whatever reason...drawing the man to the breaking point...what happens now? Officer Tough Guy takes a bullet through the door into his leg, chest, head, or wherever else you can imagine. In a panic, this guy now shoots up the street and finally finishes himself off right there with the last bullet.
Now, one police officer and five innocent individuals are dead with 4 other injured...all because one cop had a fight with his wife last night and decided to bring his beef to work with him.
--
Now I'm not saying this is going to happen to anyone -- and I really hope it doesn't -- but those are the things I'd keep in the back of my mind myself if I was a cop. You may argue that cops don't do that -- well I can assure you I have fallen victim on a few occasions to what I would call police provocation.
--
BADD...you are supposed to be a professional when you're out on the streets...and to be honest, you can do whatever you want on the internet whenever you want ... but the second your portray yourself as an officer, you need to show that professionalism -- don't prove that we're all right about cops and their 'all holy' attitude.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:35:29 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
My feelings are that the amateur photographer, freelancing and not on official business has no legitimate reason for being at that accident scene. In this case he wasn't even driving near by and found it. He is an ambulance chaser listening to a scanner. |
So becuase you 'feel' that the law-abiding citizen shouldn't have been there taking pictures -- with in all rights of the law, mind you -- you would hassle, confiscate his camera, detain him, and subpeno him to court -- just for taking pictures of somewhere that he is legally permitted to take pictures?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:46:06 PM · #155 |
What I said in the beginning was that the officer in the story handled things the wrong way.
I am saying that the person had every right to take the photo, but if it was my scene and I think that there is some photo that could help me investigate the accident, and he refused to give the photos, I would definitely get a search warrant for the camera and memory card.
If I didn't do this, I wouldn't be doing my job correctly.
As I stated before...I do think it's morally wrong to take that type of photo for no specific reason. It's my opinnion.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:47:01 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Ill keep doing what I think is right. Taking photos at a time like that for no specific reason, IMO is morally wrong and I will not back down. .... I played the role of the devil's advocate here, simply stating things that could possibly happen. |
I have no idea where your township is Shawn, and I hope for you that you mean it when you were saying that you were playing devil's advocate because at times, it is necessary.
Please don't take this as a personal attack, and I expect no answer from you either way. I grew up in a small township with the two local police officers who took care of our area frequenting my father's local store. Neither of them had extensive formal education in the Law, they were hired based on desire to serve and from what was presented to me 'a lot of on the job training'. They frankly knew less about what their jobs allowed them to do legally than many of us who were studying in high school and doing reports on just what we are discussing in this forum.
I would like to think that someone with 11 years of service has dedicated himself to the study of criminal justice, but your statements throughout this thread were either a very convincing ploy to portray a certain type of individual or you have not taken your vocation as seriously as you should have. We had a 10 year volunteer fire man who was also an arsonist, I can tell you he knew how to put out fires, but he really did not understand his duty.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:50:07 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
No..Ill keep doing what I think is right. Taking photos at a time like that for no specific reason, IMO is morally wrong and I will not back down. |
And, as an English and Philosophy major--I'm not backing down either. You're out of your league mister.
"moral": 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
"ethical": 2. Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.
You know, I've always appreciated the difference between these words. Too bad the despots don't know the difference. (For your convenience: "despot": 1. A ruler with absolute power. 2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.) |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:51:46 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
What I said in the beginning was that the officer in the story handled things the wrong way.
|
NO, that's not what you said. You said that if you saw the officer ask the photog to stop and asked the photog to delete his pictures, and he said no, that you would seize his camera, detain him, and make him miss work by making him appear in court....THAT is what you said.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:56:11 PM · #159 |
A freelance journalist along these lines makes their living,
scraping by off every image they sell to whatever news outlets will buy them.
Same as a lot of paparazzi.
Sure, you and I may find it morally unpalatable, but these people have a different sense of morality, are desensitized to it, find satisfaction(?) in it, maybe consider it a calling or think they have a moral mission to document this type of thing. Or they don't have an option, as it's their job, part of which includes photographing gruesome crime scenes (much of which likely does not involve such gruesome scenes).
Just as enforcing the law is part of your job, which includes responding to gruesome crime scenes, but mostly does not. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:56:18 PM · #160 |
The fact that you openly admitted to being a cop and blatentley admitted that you would (if given the chance) use your power to annoy a law-abiding photographer and make it so he has to miss work and not get paid on the 35,674th MOST POPULAR web site on the ENTIRE internet is just baffling to me...that's insane...that being said, I think I'm done with this thread.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:56:46 PM · #161 |
I do feel personally attacked here, I am decent open minded person. I have yet to personally attack anyone, maybe said some things that got a rise out of a few, but heck you people are slaying me here. I am in defensive mode.
I take my job seriously. I never have, nor will act unethically.
I thought this topic was up for debate. You can not have a debate if everyone agrees. Playing devil's advocate does not make you a bad person or prove that you are unethical.
I still stand my ground as far as my belief about taking that type of photo under those circumstances.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:58:07 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Like Ive stated before...those who seriously want to take pictures of carnage have issues! |
And dealing with those issues is the purview of the psychiatric community, not the police.
I will agree with you in one respect. The Nuremberg trials established that "just following orders" is not a defense in the commission of crimes against the citizenry by government representatives. You are bound to disobey an illegal order which you believe represents and infringement of the rights of a citizen. For example, if this officer's field commander had instructed him to confiscate the camera, and he had refused because he knew it was illegal, he'd be OK.
It doesn't work the other way though, you can't disobey an order (law) in order to impose MORE restrictions or limitations on a citizen's freedon than the law specifies. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:58:47 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by deapee:
The fact that you openly admitted to being a cop and blatentley admitted that you would (if given the chance) use your power to annoy a law-abiding photographer and make it so he has to miss work and not get paid on the 35,674th MOST POPULAR web site on the ENTIRE internet is just baffling to me...that's insane...that being said, I think I'm done with this thread. |
Actually he said he'd set a perimeter and keep people out if it were his accident scene so this situation would never really come up for him. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:03:32 PM · #164 |
g'nite all, I need to go take a few PAD shots. I had not planned to even log tonite, but there was a calling (no not the update button). I hate turning good discussion into pointing all fingers at one person.
For what it's worth Bad (and everyone else too), may He lead you to a wonderous light and the opportunity to capture it...even if only for a moment.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:09:19 PM · #165 |
You are not "debating." You come in with a power ploy right off the top and the tell people that they're not smart enough to understand the law as you do.
You do not answer valid points of arguement (as I and others have posed them). Instead, you turn the sympathy to other points not related to your argument.
You imply that people who record what they see are "sick" in some way. You ignore true arguments to the contrary. You think this justifies your admitted reasoning for comprimising the rights of individuals with cameras. Would you do the same if someone held a notepad and wrote down words and made sketches? And what would be the difference to your philosophical mind?
You have no intention of playing "devil's advocate"--you barely know what that means (other than your, obvious, television education has provided you).
Perhaps, if you have difficulty with philosophy, logic and the difference between morality and ethics, you'll find a more comfortable position at your local MALL.
EDIT to say: If you think you are personally under attack, then perhaps you should consider--in your "profession" as a police officer, what the citizens you protect would feel like if they knew their personal rights were under attack. (By the way, if you were going to "play the devil's advocate," then you should have expected the response.)
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 22:18:51. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:52:58 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
I take my job seriously and have the utmost respect for the law. |
Your statements have displayed that you do NOT have respect for the law.
No law would be broken, the photographers has acted totally legally, but because you would feel the photographer was morally wrong, you make a personal judgement that actually goes against the law.
There seems to be very little respect for the law here as you feel your personal feelings on an issue overrule the actual law.
So, care to explain how this is respect for the LAW over your personal moral judgement?
I find it very disturbing that a police officer would openly admit to ignoring the law, while at the same time saying he respects it ... or is that respect it when it suits?
Sadly, this is exactly the sort of attitude that seems to land people in trouble with the police when a cop makes a bad call, and rather than back down and admit they made an error starts to frantically justify their actions due to their ego. But hey, it's tax payers money that funds the police side of the law suite, so who cares hey?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 11:51:32 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
I do feel personally attacked here, I am decent open minded person. I have yet to personally attack anyone, maybe said some things that got a rise out of a few, but heck you people are slaying me here. I am in defensive mode.
I take my job seriously. I never have, nor will act unethically.
I thought this topic was up for debate. You can not have a debate if everyone agrees. Playing devil's advocate does not make you a bad person or prove that you are unethical.
I still stand my ground as far as my belief about taking that type of photo under those circumstances. |
Bad
I'm no shrink. But I did spend 30 years in the fire department with very close and positive relations with the police in our area. Many in my family (great grandfather, father, brother and a nephew) are, or were, police officers. So I do know something about the subject.
Bad, you go on about people here not knowing what it is all about out in the street and that we watch too many cop shows. I think you need to re-read the thread, look at your screen names TV reference, re-read the thread and then consider if you really do have an "attitude" problem. Try printing out this tread and taking it to the Department shrink. See what he or she has to say.
You are not being attacked as much as you have raised a sensitive nerve that people have with police. Frankly, the attitudes you transmit through your posts here scare the crap out of many of us. Take it for what it is worth. It is not too late to make changes to help better your career choice.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:00:35 PM · #168 |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:08:58 PM · #169 |
"It was unbelievable," said Bunny Brunt, who chased Swisher through the Norfolk mall until another customer tackled him. "And it wasn't only my daughter ΓΆ€” he had other kids on (the tape). God knows how many tapes he had."
hehe...I'm laughing at the thought of the mother chasing the pervert...
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 13:09:07.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:15:24 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
"It was unbelievable," said Bunny Brunt, who chased Swisher through the Norfolk mall until another customer tackled him. "And it wasn't only my daughter ΓΆ€” he had other kids on (the tape). God knows how many tapes he had."
hehe...I'm laughing at the thought of the mother chasing the pervert... |
Hitting him over the head with her shopping bags...
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:02:39 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Pano:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Thats a ludicrous example, but the general public owes it to itself to protect its privacy, not the police. I am not encouraging vigilante violence, just "forceful maintenance of public respect" - |
Indeed is a ludicrous example, and call it what you want but you are encouraging vigilante violence
If that was the case we would have to stop the World Press Photo contest from happening as 50% of the pict are from desperate situations which in one way or other could harm some one's feeling
How ever this is about a 'pig' abusing his power and not a relative of the victim reacting on an intrusion |
Hey Pano- are you suggesting that photographers should go for "the shot"
at the expense of peoples suffering and instead of helping out? I guess I am confusing fine art photography and photojournalism. I don't want to belong to a group of scavengers- do you? |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 04:10:57 PM · #172 |
Calling photojournalists scavengers? Oh boy, you're about to start a good one...although, maybe not around here...
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:23:19 PM · #173 |
| I just advocate that we don't all aspire to "paparazzi" style pictures of other people's tragedy at any cost. No shot coming from that is really "fine art" and its only a photo buddy- so no need to start world war three. Gosh- that makes photographers look almost as bad as.. well.. dare I say... lawyers? |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:29:46 PM · #174 |
Like I said before...I'm done with this thread, but I just wanted to point out that taking pictures up lady's skirts in the mall is IN NO WAY related to the original topic at hand...and if you think it is, then you are clearly mistaken.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 05:40:41 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
are you suggesting that photographers should go for "the shot" at the expense of peoples suffering and instead of helping out? I guess I am confusing fine art photography and photojournalism. I don't want to belong to a group of scavengers- do you? |
This is what PJs do. If you want a picture of the story, it is required. A photojournalist goes to the (tradgedy, disaster, funeral) and shows the world what happened. He uses his camera to bring world attention to that issue, and does not put down his camera to pitch in and help. He photographs the protester being struck down , or the child starving to death, and does not stop shooting, because if he did the fact that the attention is needed there, would be known to fewer people.
That is what it takes to do PJ work, you don't have the belly for it, and neither do I, but don't call them names. It is hard work and not for the faint of heart, and I for one am glad some people have the fortitude to do it.
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 17:41:41. |
|
