| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2005 12:34:28 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by kemilg:
Forceful?
That would have been taking the camera, laying it on the ground and then emptying the cartidge into it.
I think the officer was in full right to ask the photographer to erase the pictures.
Because this is not a question about the right to shoot a picture in public property...
This is about the right to invade someones privacy, which is exactly what the photographer was doing, the police officer was not doing anything else than protect the privacy of the injured person. |
Can't agree with this line of thinking. The officer over stepped his authority. If the photog violated a law the cop could have arrested him. Taking a camera, or asking the photog to erase pictures, accompanied by the intimidation his uniform and gun carry, was not the right thing to do. They are lots of other ways to protect privacy without interfering with a photogs rights, such as:
1) expand the "crime scene" to move the public farther away from the bloodied victim;
2) position police cars to shield the victim;
3) ask the photog to respect the privacy of the victim while acknowledging his right to shoot.
4) get the identity of the photog so that he cannot hide in the netherworld of the internet if his images are used illegally; and also just in case the shots could help in the investigation.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 12:40:16.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 12:39:52 PM · #52 |
Thats okay Scott, I could have worded it better.
I was behind the police tape along with 1 other pj and we were both arrested when he told us to stop taking photos. It was a misdemeanor charge and cost me $150 dollars. My local press association has decided toi help with an appeal recently, so hopefully it will be overturned. Not a big deal to me personally, but it is wrong.
Just be carefull when the police ask you to stop. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:10:27 PM · #53 |
Okay for starters, I am a police officer, and happen to be an Accident Investigator/Reconstructionist.
It is apparent that the majority of the people that have replied here, are not police officers, and definitely watch too much tv. When it comes to knowing what or what not a police officer is allowed/should, you have no clue. Don't think because you watch COPS or CSI, you know what you are talkin about.
Now for this specific incident. The officers made a mistake by not making the area off-limits to any un-autorized people. Being that this may be a crime scene due to the nature of the accident. The officer with tacital command, which would be the investigator, should have instructed other officers to keep everyone out of the scene area. Then anyone entering the area after being told would be subject to arrest.
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.
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.
Police Officers are sworn to uphold the law, but this officer was just upholding a higher set of laws, the law of humanity. Would you rather have a police officer with no morality? I think not. There was no need to photograph the victim. Anyone that would take pictures of a person in that situation, and not in his line of duties, has issues! I applaud the officer in what he did. I doubt he will see any type of discipline. Even if he did, I'm sure he would not care, knowing he did what was morally right.
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!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:18:28 PM · #54 |
Legal or not, anyone that goes out looking to take photos of someone all a mess on the pavment isn't going to get sympathy from me.
Also, the cop asked him to delete the photos and he complied. Nothing wrong with that. I'll repeat, the officer made a request and he complied! He could have refused to delete the photos and he could have sued for false arrest, police brutality, or what ever if the officer did anything about it that he wasn't allowed to do.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:19:08 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Police Officers are sworn to uphold the law, but this officer was just upholding a higher set of laws, the law of humanity. Would you rather have a police officer with no morality? I think not. |
Just trying to understand what you are saying here - you think you should be able to just make up new laws as you go along then or extend them as you see fit ? It seems to be what you are saying here. I may just be completely misunderstanding you though.
I thought the first part of the oath of office was to uphold the constitution ?
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 13:25:06. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:29:46 PM · #56 |
I conquer whole-heartily with rights. It's different when it's a Tsunami victim right? It's complete bullsh*t. Where do you think all these moving shots come from? I think that cop should be taught what his job actually is.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:31:28 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Police Officers are sworn to uphold the law, but this officer was just upholding a higher set of laws, the law of humanity. Would you rather have a police officer with no morality? I think not. |
Just trying to understand what you are saying here - you think you should be able to just make up new laws as you go along then or extend them as you see fit ? It seems to be what you are saying here. I may just be completely misunderstanding you though.
I thought the first part of the oath of office was to uphold the constitution ? |
exactly my point. This cop has no idea what he IS PAID TO DO
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:39:32 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Okay for starters, I am a police officer, and happen to be an Accident Investigator/Reconstructionist.
It is apparent that the majority of the people that have replied here, are not police officers, and definitely watch too much tv. When it comes to knowing what or what not a police officer is allowed/should, you have no clue. Don't think because you watch COPS or CSI, you know what you are talkin about.
Now for this specific incident. The officers made a mistake by not making the area off-limits to any un-autorized people. Being that this may be a crime scene due to the nature of the accident. The officer with tacital command, which would be the investigator, should have instructed other officers to keep everyone out of the scene area. Then anyone entering the area after being told would be subject to arrest.
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.
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.
Police Officers are sworn to uphold the law, but this officer was just upholding a higher set of laws, the law of humanity. Would you rather have a police officer with no morality? I think not. There was no need to photograph the victim. Anyone that would take pictures of a person in that situation, and not in his line of duties, has issues! I applaud the officer in what he did. I doubt he will see any type of discipline. Even if he did, I'm sure he would not care, knowing he did what was morally right.
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! |
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me introduce BADDBOYY21's post as Exhibit A in illustrating why some police are labelled pigs.
Police are not supposed to take it upon themselves to enforce a "higher law". I could pick apart the post sentence by sentence. There are lots of questionable points. But it is the overall attitude he communicates that is frightening.
I'm not a cop hater. I know cops are there for us when we need them. I just want them to enforce the law, not be the legislator.
How are you going to fight what I fear when it is a mindset, whether among poloice or the general population, condoning of abuse of citizens rights that I fear most?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:40:14 PM · #59 |
First, let me state that I have the greatest respect for Police Officers. A good friend of mine was an MP for 5 years, and is currently an officer in NC.
That said, I completely disagree with many of your comments here.
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
The officers made a mistake by not making the area off-limits to any un-autorized people. |
Yup, I agree. Because the area was not marked as "off-limits", how was the photojournalist to know that this was a potential crime scene?
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Being that this may be a crime scene due to the nature of the accident. The officer with tacital command, which would be the investigator, should have instructed other officers to keep everyone out of the scene area. Then anyone entering the area after being told would be subject to arrest. |
Agreed. Seems like many mistakes were made by the officer at the scene.
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. |
He might be a completely low-life scum, but he's still a member of the public--a citizen protected by the 1st Amendment. If he was standing on public property, outside any roped off area, he should have full right to photograph what he sees.
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Police Officers are sworn to uphold the law, but this officer was just upholding a higher set of laws, the law of humanity. Would you rather have a police officer with no morality? |
Oh boy. I personally couldn't care less if an officer has "high" moral standards (whatever that is), or none at all. He or she should enforce the law--period. Police can not enforce unwritten laws, regardless of whether he thinks what he's doing is "moral". And what exactly is the "law of humanity"? I'd like to take a look at it sometime. :-)
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:47:26 PM · #60 |
Just have to respond to one more point.
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
There was no need to photograph the victim. |
Says who?
This is exactly the reason why the Founders wrote the 1st Amendment. The government has absolutely no right to dictate to the press what can and can not be photographed, written about, published, or reported.
As I said, as long as the photographer was not interfering in the investigation, was outside any restricted area, etc., he was fully within his rights to do what he did. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 01:57:40 PM · #61 |
The ignorance of some people never ceases to amaze me.
He did nothing wrong. He asked the photographer to delete the photo's...The photographer complied! End of story. Interporate any way you want. One person on here said press charges for assualt. Last time I checked, assualt was causing bodily injury to another. Don't think the article said anything about the police officer assualting the photographer
If you want to take pictures of mangled people...go ahead! Do it around me...and you won't see your camera and photos for a very long time. Obviously, IMO, you have issues if choose to do so. So there is no reasoning with that type of person.
As far as calling a police officer a PIG, that's just moronic and shows your intelligence. No one is personally attacking you, so don't resort to name calling.
I thought this thread was up for an educated debate, obviously not!
As far as telling police officers what their job is, stick to what YOU know, not what you see on TV.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:09:32 PM · #62 |
There sure seem to be a lot of people claiming to know the law in this thread, but little proof backing up those claims. Just because the constitution gives you a particular right, doesn't mean that right exists in every situation at every turn in your life. You have the right to bear arms in this country. But wait, only certain types of arms. And only if you register them. And only when it's locked away in your home. And so on. You can drink if you're over 21, but not in all public places.
People want desparately to believe they are free to do as they please so that they don't feel obligated to know the laws that do apply to them in a given scenario. Still, not knowing the law has rarely been a valid excuse in a courtroom. The officer may have stepped out of bounds, but that's for a jury/judge to decide. Not the people in this forum. The rights of citizens in this country are different from one state to the next, even from one county to the next.
Something as simple as a "no loitering" sign can infringe on my constitutional rights, to be sure, but the reality of the modern world is that you need to be aware of laws and law enforcement around you if you want to a) stay alive b) avoid litigation and/or arrest c) avoid penalties either monetary or otherwise. Just two cents from someone who knows he doesn't know. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:15:54 PM · #63 |
| BADDBOYY21 I would suggest you re-read the article and re-post your comments. I quote from the article âLaird told Bolt he had to delete the pictures, "Because he wasn't working for anyone."â He did not in fact just ask him to delete the photos he ordered him to delete the photos, this is going beyond his authority. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:23:43 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
The ignorance of some people never ceases to amaze me.
One person on here said press charges for assualt. Last time I checked, assualt was causing bodily injury to another. |
"A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault."
As we have been pointing out- it's a good thing for those who enforce the law to know the laws they enforce.
You are talking about battery which is "A crime consisting of physical contact that is intended to harm someone. Unintentional harmful contact is not battery, no mater how careless the behavior or how severe the injury."
I'm in no way, shape or form anti-cop. I was a criminal justice major in college. I've got most of my college friends in law enforcement, and I was an EMT for 6 years. I'm not justifying the conduct of the pj. On more than one occasion I've felt the need to swing at a pj who I thought was way too close. :) Thankfully wiser and cooler heads prevailed.
Clara
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:25:05 PM · #65 |
It would be a good idea from some people here to review this document.
//www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
It is also a good idea to carry a copy of this with you. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:28:34 PM · #66 |
I don't remember reading the officers exact statement...So until we know for sure it is just the writers point of view that the photographer was "ordered".
Just because someone tells you that you "have" to jump off a bridge, are you going to do it?
Once again, officer asked that he delete, photographer complied. End of story.
It's a matter of oppinion whether or not the officer outstepped his bounds. Nowhere in the constitution does it say " you have the right to take sick, bloody, mangled photo's of victims at accident scenes".
If the photographer feels his civil rights were violated, the he should get a lawyer and sue.
This post should have been named "more abuse of photographers...if you have a different oppinion than ours dont reply!"
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:30:42 PM · #67 |
Nor did the article indicate that the photographer refused to stop taking photos or argued with the officer. The officer took his camera from him, and from the limited information in this article, it would appear that was done without legal cause.
bledford: a "no loitering" sign does not infringe on any Constitutional right, nor is drinking alcohol a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It's important to specify, in this type of situation, the difference between a Constitutionally guaranteed right and most every other law, as they are not guaranteed, but legislated.
You say that a lot of people claim to know the law, with little proof backing it up. What do you mean, specifically? It is a generally accepted First Amendment protected legal right to be standing on public property and take and use photographs for editorial purposes ("news worthy" is legally subjective) of people and scenes in public sight, on public property, outside of a controlled crime scene, not interferring with police actions and otherwise obeying orders to either stop or move, as the situation in question appears to be.
I don't watch TV (Cops or CSI or any such fictional waste of time), but I have made it a point to educate myself on the specifics of the law in this regard. Please, BADDBOYY21 and bledford, if we are all under some grand misconception here, please oh please educate us as to where we've been misguided.
As far as suing the Police or filing charges... I dunno. What's the value of a photo to the local paper? $35-50? People need to realize that when you sue the city for frivilous stuff, you're suing your neighbors, as everyone pays for those public services.
"Once again, officer asked that he delete, photographer complied. End of story."
Not quite. Initially the camera was taken from him and there was a threat of arrest or some other threat if the photos were not deleted. Either way, the photographer DID NOT have to comply and obviously wouldn't have deleted them with a simple polite request from the officer.
Calling this guy an "ambulance chaser" may be quite accurate. However, I do personally know two such freelance journalists that make a very good living doing just that -- not pretty, but it's far from illegal. The difference here is that, over the years, they've cultivated relationships with the police, so it's never an adversarial situation. I started such a relationship myself (after an initial adversarial confrontation was narrowly avoided), but decided the work was not my cup of tea.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 14:38:47. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:31:43 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
The ignorance of some people never ceases to amaze me.
One person on here said press charges for assualt. Last time I checked, assualt was causing bodily injury to another. |
"A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault."
As we have been pointing out- it's a good thing for those who enforce the law to know the laws they enforce.
You are talking about battery which is "A crime consisting of physical contact that is intended to harm someone. Unintentional harmful contact is not battery, no mater how careless the behavior or how severe the injury."
I'm in no way, shape or form anti-cop. I was a criminal justice major in college. I've got most of my college friends in law enforcement, and I was an EMT for 6 years. I'm not justifying the conduct of the pj. On more than one occasion I've felt the need to swing at a pj who I thought was way too close. :) Thankfully wiser and cooler heads prevailed.
Clara |
Is that a Pennsylvania definition of assualt?
PA title 18 SS2702:
A person is guilty of assault if he :
(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes BODILY injury to another;
(2) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon;
(3) attempts by a PHYSICAL MENACE to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury
So clara at what time did the officer by any of these definitions assualt the photographer?
Once again, an EMT telling a police officer how to do his job.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 14:39:00.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:34:45 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
I don't remember reading the officers exact statement...So until we know for sure it is just the writers point of view that the photographer was "ordered".
Just because someone tells you that you "have" to jump off a bridge, are you going to do it?
Once again, officer asked that he delete, photographer complied. End of story.
It's a matter of oppinion whether or not the officer outstepped his bounds. Nowhere in the constitution does it say " you have the right to take sick, bloody, mangled photo's of victims at accident scenes".
If the photographer feels his civil rights were violated, the he should get a lawyer and sue.
This post should have been named "more abuse of photographers...if you have a different oppinion than ours dont reply!" |
So clarify something for us, if you are at a crime scene and there is a photographer shooting photos, who is well behind any lines the police have set up, and letâs say the photographer is standing next to others who are also watching, do you believe you have the authority to tell the photographer that he can not take photos? I am not talking about asking him not to but rather ordering him not to. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:41:13 PM · #70 |
No, scott you are right on that one. IMO a police officer could not order him to stop if he was behind the designated area...but a police officer could seize the camera, memory card and or film. Obtain a search warrant on the grounds of evidence.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:45:02 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Is that a Pennsylvania definition of assualt? He we go again. |
This is the standard legal definition of assault in the United States. Same thing for battery. Pick up ANY Policiing 101 text, or Criminal Law first year book and that's the definition.
Every jusisdiction has variations on the degree of the offence. The legal definition is constant. It's an easy mistake to make, most people think assault is physical contact. That's actually battery.
Clara
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:50:33 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by blemt:
[quote=BADDBOYY21]Is that a Pennsylvania definition of assualt? He we go again. |
This is the standard legal definition of assault in the United States. Same thing for battery. Pick up ANY Policiing 101 text, or Criminal Law first year book and that's the definition.
Every jusisdiction has variations on the degree of the offence. The legal definition is constant. It's an easy mistake to make, most people think assault is physical contact. That's actually battery.
So what you are saying is that the photographer, being a "reasonable" person believed that if he did not erase the photo's, the officer would have physically assaulted him?
I at no time made a mistake here.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:50:44 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
No, scott you are right on that one. IMO a police officer could not order him to stop if he was behind the designated area...but a police officer could seize the camera, memory card and or film. Obtain a search warrant on the grounds of evidence. |
Don't you have to get a search warrant before you enter or confiscate property, unless you actually see it being used in the course of a crime? Honestly, I'm curious.
Secondly, wouldn't you have to get a judge to actually SIGN a search warrant, or be forced to return that property? |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:52:54 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
No, scott you are right on that one. IMO a police officer could not order him to stop if he was behind the designated area...but a police officer could seize the camera, memory card and or film. Obtain a search warrant on the grounds of evidence. |
I can well imagine them being able to take a memory card for evidence, under some circumstances, such as there is some reason to believe that the photographer has photos that the police photographer does not. If this is used indiscriminately when there is no real value to the photos as evidence then I would think this could be a problem for the officer who seize the card. Beyond the legal issues of seizing film/memory for evidence there is a public relations issue. If the police start seizing film and memory from people who are photographing them the question will be raised, what are the police hiding that they donât want to be photographed? I would be one of the ones asking this question.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:53:13 PM · #75 |
Nope...you can confiscate the camera immediately in fear the evidence could be destroyed by the time the warrant was obtained. It would however be inadmissible if the warrant was not obtained.
A judge would sign that search warrant no questions asked.
|
|
