|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/15/2015 06:38:33 PM · #26 |
It's probably to stop all the people with their cell phones going up and taking selflies during the arrest
|
|
|
|
03/15/2015 06:53:08 PM · #27 |
I'm a New Yorker and I don't carry a gun (duh), but I do have my camera with me most of the time ... If I see a situation where the police are involved I will go out of my way to be out of the way.
This law sounds to me like Texas officials want to stretch their muscles and assert their whatever. I can't believe there are more people who carry guns in Texas than NYC. And even if there are, they are probably not photographers. |
|
|
|
03/15/2015 06:59:34 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
It's probably to stop all the people with their cell phones going up and taking selflies during the arrest |
THIS!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
03/15/2015 09:15:25 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I actually don't see this as a problem. 25 ft is nothing, especially with a zoom lens. It certainly is plenty close to get "action" shots without interfering with the police, or getting anyone -including the photographer - hurt. There are just way too many people with cameras and no common sense, trying to be ckever and "get the shot". |
I would think that laws already exist for interfering with a peace officer carrying out their duties, and such a ban pretty much guarantees that it is illegal for a protester carrying out their constitutional rights to carry a camera. 25ft may be nothing if you have a DSLR or the like, but it is a long distance for most cell phones, which is likely what most police are recorded with. If you are not interfering, there is no reason to limit your rights in this manner, if you are interfering, there are already laws for that. |
|
|
|
03/15/2015 10:05:50 PM · #30 |
| I think it's funny how the police hate being policed. |
|
|
|
03/15/2015 10:20:53 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by nygold:
I think it's funny how the police hate being policed. |
Well, most photographers hate being photographed... |
|
|
|
03/15/2015 10:23:58 PM · #32 |
|
|
|
03/16/2015 03:52:11 AM · #33 |
\\I had a friend recently post in regard to this, and this is my response.
" First off, full disclosure, I do work in law enforcement as a citizen dispatcher/911 operator.
Next- I don't agree with the nature of the law despite identifying with the idea. To clarify, having a swarm of cell phone paparazzi's descend upon an in progress call is dangerous both for officers (who need to judge each additional person that approaches them as a threat or not) and for the public (people attempting to get closer to document whatever is happening regardless of what's happening). To that end, yes, a buffer would be good for everybody's sake. But I starkly disagree with the anti 1st Amendment nature of it. The hard part is, how do you make people not be dumb and obstructionist? The answer is you can't, because if there's one thing this job has reminded me of, it's how ridiculous people can be.
Next up- body cams. Yes, they're great. They actually can speed up the legal process (defendant sees themselves being an idiot on camera, not going to drag things out), they mitigate use of force investigations (freeing up manpower for other uses), they make the public feel safer, they make the public behave better around law enforcement. You'll notice that most of my reasons are law enforcement based reasons for why they are good, and it's no surprise, as there are a huge number of proponents of body cams within law enforcement. A lot of that is due to how things are in the digital age- everybody can record what's going on, but they are rarely close enough or begin recording to fully record the full interaction. This means video evidence from the public is largely incomplete (lacking audio as well as sufficient lead up to establish the nature of the contact), but is very persuasive. So yes, police tend to like body cams because it validates their view of the scenario and is not subject to the unknown biases of the recorder, it being attached to them and showing their perspective.
The problem- this is more technology that is more expensive. The public unanimously questions the funding of police, yet the public wants better coverage, better response, and better enforcement (usually with lower cost). One of the agencies I dispatch for had to cut patrol officers because of a lack of funding on the behalf of the city. The money wasn't there. Yet, despite that, there is a push to have them wear cameras for the reasons above. How much money are we talking? Let's get local- Fort Collins has been implementing body cams for a bit now, and just increased their supply by 40 additional systems. The total cost for those additional 40? $181,000 (//www.coloradoan.com/.../fort-collins.../15791607/). Now, everybody is now going to say "wtf, 40 cameras for 180k?" Like I said, unanimous questioning of funding, which is good, it's our money at work. But there's more to it than that. The department has to have things like tech support for the life of the devices, they have to purchase the equipment itself, they have to be able to store the information, they have to pay for the time it takes to remove the data (because somebody is doing it), they have to pay for the person that organizes and pulls the information for court cases and investigations (plus their training), they have to have a committee created to evaluate the products and determine which to use, and have a committee vote and sign on whoever the final contractor is, and any number of other things in the machine that I can't even begin to talk about because I'm not deep enough into things to explain further. And for those who say that this is just BS governmental footdragging, it's because that is what is demanded by the public. A step around any of the steps means a charge of impropriety.
Additionally-
There are departments that are terrible and corrupt, but they are terrible and corrupt because they reflect the cultures embodied by the areas they reside in. Officers are residents too, if racism is rampant in a city, then you shouldn't be surprised that officers are racist too. Is it tragic because they have power and enforce societal norms? Absolutely, but we all do that. We can all encourage the practice of being terrible to the downtrodden, or having racist attitudes, or picking on somebody who isn't quite like you. We all share the power of shaping the culture of our community. You want to change things, stand up and be an example. Don't partake in it, object when you see it. Change the culture.
Look, nobody likes dealing with police, I understand. If you're talking to police it means something terrible has happened or is happening, you're upset. And I understand that you're upset. I have a mantra to keep myself level headed about my interactions with the public, and it goes like this- "If a citizen is talking to me, it means they are definitely having a terrible day, if not the worst day of their life. Give them the biggest benefit of the doubt possible, be their lighthouse in the storm.""
ETA: language
Message edited by author 2015-03-16 04:05:16. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/22/2025 06:32:07 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/22/2025 06:32:07 PM EDT.
|
