Man arrested for mobile phone image

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

07/27/2006 12:27:38 PM · #1

Arrest

Cruz said police told him that he broke a new law that prohibits people from taking pictures of police with cell phones.

"They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation. â�¦ They said, 'You were impeding this investigation.' (I asked,) "By doing what?' (The officer said,) 'By taking a picture of the police officers with a camera phone,'" Cruz said.

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 12:32:42.

cryingdragon

Canon EOS-10D

07/27/2006 12:30:29 PM · #2

rediculous

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/27/2006 12:33:45 PM · #3

Well that sucks!!

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/27/2006 12:34:39 PM · #4

Welcome to the new world! That's crap!

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/27/2006 12:34:46 PM · #5

What the hell. Do the cops think that they can do anything?

Unreal just unreal ... :-(

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

07/27/2006 12:39:57 PM · #6

There must be some other story behind this. The original arrest could be more sensitive than thought... I don't think it is cell phone picture taking, it could be anything.

I don't know... but there has to be some other explanations for this.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/27/2006 12:43:56 PM · #7

Originally posted by focuspoint:

Why? Because the police don't lie?

Cruz's parents, who got him out of jail, said police told them the same thing.

"He said he was taking pictures with his cell phone and that was obstructing an investigation," said Aracelis Cruz, Neftaly Cruz's mother.

The NBC 10 Investigators asked the ACLU union how they viewed the incident.

"There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street," said Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I think it's rather scary that in this country you could actually be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street."

How many stories have we seen on here lately where the police/authorities harass photographers? We are becoming public ememy no 1..well at least no 64

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 12:47:08.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

07/27/2006 12:44:14 PM · #8

Copwatch

Copwatch article

07/27/2006 12:52:06 PM · #9

Originally posted by focuspoint:

I agree to a point. Saying there "has to be" some other explanation is too judgemental in the other direction IMO. However, it IS possible that there is more to the story.

07/27/2006 12:58:51 PM · #10

Or it could be that it is as it is.

After the Rodney King episode (filmed) and that old guy in New Orleans where the police threatened and chased off a cameraman using a police horse..you can imagine, that if they plan to do something beyond the scope of their powers, that they don't want someone to record it.

In court without camera evidence it would be civilian's word against police.
In court with camera evidence - no contest.

If they're doing nothing wrong, they shouldn't fear the camera.Isn't that what they tell us about CCTV?

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 12:59:48.

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

07/27/2006 01:03:55 PM · #11

Because this situation became public, your reactions are normal.

No matter what we say, what we do or what we wish; the system in whole world is similar.... and if there is some sensitive issue that one of the institutes find necessary, there is no law... action will be taking.

It is kind of frustrating to see some people have more power than others, and some of those people misuse this power, but so do we... In our work place, in our home... The scale is different that's all.

(I am not sure if anyone out there understands the point I am trying to make.)

The system is an entity which has a very thick shield. Even if we want to make change, try to do things the "right" way and try to voted in to the system... might not work, and we would be swept under the rug...

Now there are exceptions. There could be a "huge load" because of the system and there could be implosion like happened in Russia... but it happens very rare, and big scales.

Ok, I am WAAAY out of the subject now... I don't know how did I get here...

But, all I want to say that there "could" be a reason for this... Remember, we "can't" trust everything what news media says.

I don't

(been there, done that too many times)

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 13:04:55.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/27/2006 01:04:21 PM · #12

I wonder if his phone cam has flash, or if he was that close to the action that an officer was able to see him take a picture?

_eug

Nikon D50

07/27/2006 01:09:43 PM · #13

I find this curious, sinceI've been in Philadelphia for 8 years now and don't remember hearing about this law. Sounds bogus to me...

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/27/2006 01:12:34 PM · #14

Originally posted by _eug:

I find this curious, sinceI've been in Philadelphia for 8 years now and don't remember hearing about this law. Sounds bogus to me...

I think the policeman made it up on the spot....he doesn't sound like he even knows how to construct a sentence, let alone know the law:

''You should have just went in the house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures off your picture phone,'"

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 13:13:04.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

07/27/2006 01:13:55 PM · #15

It is the mistake (IMO) to involve ACLU in this. That way you turn on yourself all the ACLU haters and you ruin your chances for any redemption. They should proceed silently, via legal means, and get their justice. (Unless, of course, they prefer publicity over justice).

Pretty soon someone will rip the guy's life apart, find that he tied a firecracker to a cat's tail when he was 9, and they'll proclaim him a communist/terrorist or whatever is the current scary word.

I agree with focuspoint on one point at least: Things like this happen every day everywhere, and if it is you, bad for you.

The sooner we get used to the fact that we are living in a tightly controlled society, the better we will be. We should adapt and forget about the liberties we should have. Be happy with the ones remaining...

The little paper about "photographers' rights" states that one has the right to take photos of police in a public place. There is also a disclaimer to check against local laws to see if there is one that overrides this general law.

The absence of prohibition means that it is allowed (or is it the other way around?)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/27/2006 01:15:02 PM · #16

Originally posted by amber:

How's that children's game go, where one person says something and passes it along - at the end the message is totally different from how it started. The quote you mention...is that directly from the police officer or second hand?

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

07/27/2006 01:18:37 PM · #17

Originally posted by srdanz:

The sooner we get used to the fact that we are living in a tightly controlled society, the better we will be. We should adapt and forget about the liberties we should have. Be happy with the ones remaining...

I'm sorry but NEVER WILL I DO THIS!!!

It's called the "Bill of Rights"

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 13:21:32.

07/27/2006 01:23:37 PM · #18

Originally posted by srdanz:

I agree about the ACLU..but

'The sooner we get used to the fact that we are living in a tightly controlled society, the better we will be. We should adapt and forget about the liberties we should have. Be happy with the ones remaining...'

That frightens the life out of me!!!! Orwell is spinning in his grave, as are all the young men that died in both world wars and other conflicts to prorect liberty and freedom. I think many germans felt the same way as Hitler eroded their rights and liberty for their own protection!!!

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/27/2006 01:29:27 PM · #19

Originally posted by glad2badad:

The quote you mention...is that directly from the police officer or second hand?

second hand ...again, you can accept what people say or not, but you couldn't make that up:)) If your wife quotes you, is she suspect? I know when I am in a very stressful situation that my mind becomes hyper absorbent...I see, feel and hear everything as though it is all amplified...I remember conversations word for word...i think it's a survival tool.

Unless it's recorded how do you know it's true? Even then, recordings can be tampered with...what then?

Collin Powell

Message edited by author 2006-07-27 13:32:05.

quiet_observation

Canon EOS-7D

07/27/2006 01:29:59 PM · #20

Some of Philly's finest at work again! I know the police here have a bad reputation for abuse but I think the person taking the photograph made a bad judgement. I would never even think about coming close to a setting where the Philadelphia police were making a drug bust. There would be way too many guns involved.

I suspect the police thought the photo taker might have been involved with the drug dealers.

07/27/2006 01:33:16 PM · #21

But they didn't arrest him on drug charges..they arrested him for taking pictures!!!!

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/27/2006 01:36:40 PM · #22

Originally posted by amber:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
The quote you mention...is that directly from the police officer or second hand?

second hand ...again, you can accept what people say or not, but you couldn't make that up:)) If your wife quotes you, is she suspect? I know when I am in a very stressful situation that my mind becomes hyper absorbent...I see, feel and hear everything as though it is all amplified...I remember conversations word for word...i think it's a survival tool.

Unless it's recorded how do you know it's true? Even then, recordings can be tampered with...what then?

Sorry, but I think you're making a stretch here. To make the following statement as you did I think is unfair to the officer involved.

You said "I think the policeman made it up on the spot....he doesn't sound like he even knows how to construct a sentence, let alone know the law: ".

It wasn't the officers direct statement, it was a reconstruction by someone else in an emotive state.

swankFoto

Fujifilm X-E1

07/27/2006 01:37:36 PM · #23

Originally posted by srdanz:

It is the mistake (IMO) to involve ACLU in this. That way you turn on yourself all the ACLU haters and you ruin your chances for any redemption.

How does involving the ACLU "ruin your chances for any redemption"?
The fact that the ACLU would create publicity only betters chances for justice. When one party is so obviously in the wrong, the more people that are aware of the injustice makes it easier for redemption and hopefully a change in policy/behavior.

Originally posted by srdanz:

They should proceed silently, via legal means, and get their justice. (Unless, of course, they prefer publicity over justice).

Since when is publicity and justice mutually exclusive?