| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2005 03:32:25 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by louddog:
Okay, so it's perfectly okay, on public land, to take pictures of a person that has been seriously injured so you can keep them in your private sicko collection or sell them to other sickos.
Is it okay, on public land, to take photos up a woman's skirt? |
What does this have to do with a journalist at an accident scene ? You might want to look up the definition of a 'strawman' argument at some point, maybe. |
Big difference between a journalist and a "free lance Journalist." Anyone that would consider selling a picture to a newspaper is a free lance journalist.
Also, there are several occasions where the underside of a womans skirt is on public display just as an accident victim may be easily visible to the public. Stairwells, a balcony, siting down carelessly... Same goes for a woman bending over while wearing a loose blouse... I see this quite often without looking for it. Is it okay to take these photos?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:33:19 PM · #102 |
| BTW hint for people with F828s, if you are worried about someone demanding that your photos be deleted take a few on say the memory stick but most on the CF card. Then when asked to delete the photos switch to the memory stick and delete the few photos that are there. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:33:31 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
First of all you do not have to run the yellow tape, to make a scene a "crime scene". |
He gave an example. Are you ignoring his other examples of trespass?
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Pictures of a crash scene ARE evidence, and are very useful to the investigator. People do get prosecuted from offenses involved in a crash. |
The officer clearly was not trying to secure evidence--he was attempting to thwart the gathering of evidence and, in the end, he caused the destruction of evidence. Much simpler to ask for identification if you want to preserve evidence, don't you think?
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Crimes are not just commited while robbing a bank...etc. |
Again, examples. And they are examples of evidence of the commission of a crime--not the aftermath. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:34:55 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by louddog:
Okay, so it's perfectly okay, on public land, to take pictures of a person that has been seriously injured so you can keep them in your private sicko collection or sell them to other sickos.
Is it okay, on public land, to take photos up a woman's skirt? |
Up a woman̢۪s skirt is not legal, this is because she has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to people looking up her skirt In general if you are out in public people can photograph you, this is not considered an invasion of privacy any more then people looking at you when you are in public. Since you do have a expectation of not having people looking up your skirt you also have the right not to be photographed as such. |
Wouldn't I have the "reasonable expectaion of privacy" with respect to people looking at my son's brains spread out on a highway?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:35:23 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by louddog:
[quote=Gordon] [quote=louddog] Also, there are several occasions where the underside of a womans skirt is on public display just as an accident victim may be easily visible to the public. Stairwells, a balcony, siting down carelessly... Same goes for a woman bending over while wearing a loose blouse... I see this quite often without looking for it. Is it okay to take these photos? |
In those cases it is my understanding that is is legal to take the photos, as I have said before there are limits to what you can do with these photos. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:40:09 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Wouldn't I have the "reasonable expectaion of privacy" with respect to people looking at my son's brains spread out on a highway? |
No, you do not. Just because you might want it, doesn't give you an expectation for it. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:41:29 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by louddog:
[quote=Gordon] [quote=louddog] Big difference between a journalist and a "free lance Journalist." Anyone that would consider selling a picture to a newspaper is a free lance journalist.
|
In this country we do not have a special class of citizen called a "journalist" that has more rights then other citizens, there is a good reason for this it gets far to close to being able to license those people who we feel can and can not be journalist. I don̢۪t believe there is a legal definition of journalist, if you take a photo and put it up on your web site with a description then you are a journalist, maybe a really bad one.. Do you really want the police to get to decide who is and who is not a journalist?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:41:41 PM · #108 |
okay...well maybe I haven't stated it clearly enough.
There are a ton of things that may be in a photo taken at a crash scene that ARE evidence. For example, placement of vehicles, skid marks, yaw marks, line of sight obstructions, debri splatter, direction of thrust, road signage, the positions of the victims, landmarks, points of reference... Need I go on, or can we close the class on "identifying evidence at a crash scene"?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:42:39 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Wow...I already agreed that things should have been handled differently.
The bottom line is that there are ways for an officer to get your camera and photo's if it was taken at a crime scene/crash scene.
If you DON'T believe that, try it out for yourself. |
I don't think people don't believe this could happen. Many believe that it SHOULDN'T happen since it's an abuse of authority.
Unless the cop GENUINELY feels that the photographer has acted illegally in taking the images or GENUINELY thinks the images could help the investigation he should NOT be using his powers to intervene just because he doesn't like things from his personal moral standpoint.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 15:43:36.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:43:57 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by louddog:
[quote=Gordon] [quote=louddog] Also, there are several occasions where the underside of a womans skirt is on public display just as an accident victim may be easily visible to the public. Stairwells, a balcony, siting down carelessly... Same goes for a woman bending over while wearing a loose blouse... I see this quite often without looking for it. Is it okay to take these photos? |
In those cases it is my understanding that is is legal to take the photos, as I have said before there are limits to what you can do with these photos. |
With no visible faces I could do what ever I wanted with the pictures. Now, legal = yes, right = no. Would I expect a cop to ask me to stop if I were caught doing this? Yep.
For the record, I do not do this.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:45:36 PM · #111 |
Like I said before...I already agreed with that, just stating there are ways around things. So be careful of what you do at crime/crash scenes.
What it comes down to is...Americans do not like to be told what to do. We feel that we can do whatever we want, or we will just sue!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:48:00 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by louddog:
[quote=Gordon] [quote=louddog] Big difference between a journalist and a "free lance Journalist." Anyone that would consider selling a picture to a newspaper is a free lance journalist.
|
In this country we do not have a special class of citizen called a "journalist" that has more rights then other citizens, there is a good reason for this it gets far to close to being able to license those people who we feel can and can not be journalist. I don̢۪t believe there is a legal definition of journalist, if you take a photo and put it up on your web site with a description then you are a journalist, maybe a really bad one.. Do you really want the police to get to decide who is and who is not a journalist? |
Often times real journalist (photographers that work for a news organization) are allowed to go places (i.e. behind containment lines) that the public is not.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:52:49 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
okay...well maybe I haven't stated it clearly enough.
There are a ton of things that may be in a photo taken at a crash scene that ARE evidence. For example, placement of vehicles, skid marks, yaw marks, line of sight obstructions, debri splatter, direction of thrust, road signage, the positions of the victims, landmarks, points of reference... Need I go on, or can we close the class on "identifying evidence at a crash scene"? |
For all of these items that you have mentioned I would expect that a police photographer would be covering them. I would think the only legitimate reason to seize film/memory as evidence is if there is reason to believe that there is something relevant on the memory card that the police photographer can not photograph for whatever reason.
Certainly you are not advocating that police seize private property when it has no real use as evidence. I assume you would not use this ploy simply as a way to harass a photographer that pissed you off?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:56:44 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Like I said before...I already agreed with that, just stating there are ways around things. So be careful of what you do at crime/crash scenes.
What it comes down to is...Americans do not like to be told what to do. We feel that we can do whatever we want, or we will just sue! |
What it comes down to is that many of us view rights as very important, important enought that they need to be defended even if we don't like the person who's rights are being violated. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:00:17 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
okay...well maybe I haven't stated it clearly enough.
There are a ton of things that may be in a photo taken at a crash scene that ARE evidence. For example, placement of vehicles, skid marks, yaw marks, line of sight obstructions, debri splatter, direction of thrust, road signage, the positions of the victims, landmarks, points of reference... Need I go on, or can we close the class on "identifying evidence at a crash scene"? |
For all of these items that you have mentioned I would expect that a police photographer would be covering them. I would think the only legitimate reason to seize film/memory as evidence is if there is reason to believe that there is something relevant on the memory card that the police photographer can not photograph for whatever reason.
Certainly you are not advocating that police seize private property when it has no real use as evidence. I assume you would not use this ploy simply as a way to harass a photographer that pissed you off? |
Do you know how long it takes to get a police photographer there? Not all department can afford to have a "police photographer" on staff.
I'm not debating this anymore. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. You obviously don't understand what the word "temporary" means.
Debating what is considered evidence, and what can be seized, with people not in law-enoforcement or being versed in the rules of search and seizure... Is like talking astro-physics with a sanatation worker.
We can respectfully agree to disagree on this topic.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:08:34 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. You obviously don't understand what the word "temporary" means.
... Is like talking astro-physics with a sanatation worker.
We can respectfully agree to disagree on this topic. |
A famed british theoretical physisist once said that any theory you couldn't explain to a bartender wasn't much of a theory. Most failed communication has more to do with the speaker than the audience IMHO. And while He looks up temporary you might want to look up respectfully. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:14:53 PM · #117 |
Look up 'physicist'!
;0)
*said in a much more light-hearted manner than most of this thread!!*
edit: I agree with you about being respectful, Brennan..
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 16:23:48.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:18:36 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Is like talking astro-physics with a sanatation worker. |
We respect our san_i_tation workers here--where they're still proudly known as "garbage collectors."
And frankly, I'd rather take my chances p*ssing off a cop than one of them. =-) |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:36:51 PM · #119 |
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. |
I believe assault is the threat of physical harm. Pointing a gun at someone, verbally threatening them with harm, or raising a fist is assault.
Battery is the actual striking. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:38:46 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
I believe assault is the threat of physical harm. Pointing a gun at someone, verbally threatening them with harm, or raising a fist is assault.
Battery is the actual striking. |
Read the definition of assualt I posted earlier. That was taken verbatim from the Pennsyvania Crimes Code.
What you are describing is called a "terroristic threat" in Pennsylvania.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 16:40:09.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:48:26 PM · #121 |
Because the following has not been answered, I am bumping it back to the top of the thread.
**********************
Originally posted by bear_music:
Don't you see the problem, badboy? By your own statement, in this situation (the hypothetical one below) you acknowledge you can't force him to stop taking pictures; he's legally in the clear. So you say (by your earlier statement) that you will enforce a "higher law" and, based on your own perception of what's right and wrong you will seize the guy's property as evidence and tie him up in court for a long time.
Can't you see that this attitude, a cop acting in this manner, is absolutely WRONG? In this case you might be "right" (the guy might be a sleaze and a pervert and so forth) but the PRINCIPLE is wrong. Police officers can't do this, or shouldn't anyway. It's gross misuse of their authority.
"I'm an officer. I don't like what you're doing. I can't order you not to do it, but I can make it impossible for you to do it, because I'm a cop and you're not and I don't like what you're doing." |
Can you respond to this, badboy? This is what has most of us concerned, apparently. It's NOT whether the photographer was a jackass or not, it's NOT whether you can find a justification for confiscating the camera, it's whether ANY policeman EVER should be making "moral" calls like that. It's very scary. It's not allowwed. it's fascism-in-the-making.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 04:57:23 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
What you are describing is called a "terroristic threat" in Pennsylvania. |
Then I think the land of William Penn has vastly overextended the definition of "terroristic."
The bottom line of this who sad story is that the officer violated the rights of the photographer. If the photos were actual evidence, they should have been seized and preserved, and the photographer given a receipt.
Since they were not, and were in fact ordered destroyed, the only conclusion is that the photos were objectionable (to the officer) but not illegal nor of evidentiary value, and that the order to destroy personal property by the officer under color of authority was wrong, and constitutes an "illegal taking" under the Constitution, and the officer/department is probably liable for civil damages. There are probably no grounds for any criminal charges against anybody. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 06:23:16 PM · #123 |
Well, I'm certainly not going to sift through 5 pages of crap to catch back up with this thread, but I will say, that if I see an accident, I'm taking pictures. And if the cops have a problem with it and force me to erase pictures that possibly portrayed an ambulance worker as a hero standing, looking with a tear in his eye or a photo that might have been of value to the insurance company, their department will be buying me a new camera...talk about violating a person's rights...I'm fed up with it. Show me the dead man falling out of the casket -- I'll whip my camera out right now. 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. I'm just fed up! -- and if the cops have a problem with it, bring it on...I'll see you in court...why? Because I have every right to take pictures and so did he!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 07:24:17 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Because the following has not been answered, I am bumping it back to the top of the thread.
**********************
Originally posted by bear_music:
Don't you see the problem, badboy? By your own statement, in this situation (the hypothetical one below) you acknowledge you can't force him to stop taking pictures; he's legally in the clear. So you say (by your earlier statement) that you will enforce a "higher law" and, based on your own perception of what's right and wrong you will seize the guy's property as evidence and tie him up in court for a long time.
Can't you see that this attitude, a cop acting in this manner, is absolutely WRONG? In this case you might be "right" (the guy might be a sleaze and a pervert and so forth) but the PRINCIPLE is wrong. Police officers can't do this, or shouldn't anyway. It's gross misuse of their authority.
"I'm an officer. I don't like what you're doing. I can't order you not to do it, but I can make it impossible for you to do it, because I'm a cop and you're not and I don't like what you're doing." |
Can you respond to this, badboy? This is what has most of us concerned, apparently. It's NOT whether the photographer was a jackass or not, it's NOT whether you can find a justification for confiscating the camera, it's whether ANY policeman EVER should be making "moral" calls like that. It's very scary. It's not allowwed. it's fascism-in-the-making.
Robt. |
I for one cannot comment on issues on this nature that occur in the USA.
However, having spent 30 years in law enforcement in Canada, I can assure you that the actions of the officer in this instance, would run afoul of not only the criminal law, but also the standing orders governing the behaviour of a Police Officer...
Yes it is conceivable that items may be seized for evidentiary purposes, but the fact remains that the courts, (to wit a judge) decides the relevance of the information at hand, not the police officer, and that this type of decisions is rendered in a timely manner and not dragged on for extended periods time.
However, as indicated at the onset, the process may vary considerably between countries.
Ray
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 19:26:08. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 07:30:53 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...and the officer/department is probably liable for civil damages. There are probably no grounds for any criminal charges against anybody. |
Finally, a sensible perspective on what is likely to or should happen in this case. |
|
