Photography is not a crime

[Rick M]

I think sometimes cops have dealt with so many creeps that they develop a hard attitude out of necessity.
Unfortunately, some don't know how to turn it off for law abiding citizens and you get situations like this. Legally, the cops were wrong, but I don't have much sympathy for the guy with the camera. I almost think he wanted this to happen to make his point.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

From what I saw on the video, the photog did nothing in any way. He had no legal obligation to present ID. He gave his name and date of birth to the very first officer who requested it. He gave a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for why he was there and what he was doing. At some point after giving that information he started to walk away calmly. At that point he was *ordered to stop* by another officer.

At this point the photographer, or his equipment, was grabbed hold of; not once but *twice*. He was threatened with arrest. He was told his equipment could be seized on the spot (a blatant lie). He was detained and physically restrained by an officer. That much is clear.

Once again, what has the photographer done? He gave his name and date of birth as required. He gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he was at the scene and what he was doing. That should have been the end of it... But this second cop can't let it go: his authority has been questioned by a sniveling citizen with a camera! In the face of ongoing verbal harassment the photographer (again) calmly, if firmly, continues to assert his rights. He kept his cool and refused to bullied even in the face of several officers. He clearly knew his rights, stood by them and it seems to me this is what was really pissing off Officer McGrabby.

I love how the photographer asking about pressing charges for battery is met with a staggering silence because yeah, he probably could have made a pretty good case and Officer McGrabby probably knew it. Then it seems Officer McGrabby gets called off by one of his buddies when they realized they really had no leg to stand on legally, were probably way past the limits or what would pass for a reasonable period of detainment and were generally getting in over their head with someone who wasn't going to cow-tow to their intimidation tactics. Had the cops been in good legal standing clearly they would have arrested the guy. They weren't, they knew it and they got their bluff called by someone with the balls to stand up for themselves.

Frankly, I shudder to think what might have happened had the photographer NOT managed to keep the audio and video rolling the whole time during this little encounter...

If this guy is ever in my town, the beers are on me.

...

 

[BackdoorArts]

Here's the thing about this video. Yes, the guy had his sh*t together. Yes, he knows his rights. Yes, the cops go too far too fast. But what I hate about stuff like this is the guy with the camera was looking for this fight just so he could put the video up. Pick the video up here at 9:18...

He's been following these guys around all night hoping for just this kind of confrontation. He doesn't tell you that up front, so by the time you get there you're mad as hell at these cops. I believe they had every right to approach him for his name, and they had every right to approach him afterward to figure out what the hell he was doing recording every stop the cops were making that night. The cops could have gone about it better, starting with the question regarding multiple stops instead of grabbing at the camera, but that's just my opinion and don't deal with idiots and malcontents all day. I'm not defending the cops' actions, but neither do I defend this guy's tactics for getting this on camera. There are asshats on both sides of the camera here.

 

[480sparky]

This is an open-carry stop, but this is how it's supposed to go:

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Here's the thing about this video. Yes, the guy had his sh*t together. Yes, he knows his rights. Yes, the cops go too far too fast. But what I hate about stuff like this is the guy with the camera was looking for this fight just so he could put the video up. Pick the video up here at 9:18...

He's been following these guys around all night hoping for just this kind of confrontation. He doesn't tell you that up front, so by the time you get there you're mad as hell at these cops. I believe they had every right to approach him for his name, and they had every right to approach him afterward to figure out what the hell he was doing recording every stop the cops were making that night. The cops could have gone about it better, starting with the question regarding multiple stops instead of grabbing at the camera, but that's just my opinion and don't deal with idiots and malcontents all day. I'm not defending the cops' actions, but neither do I defend this guy's tactics for getting this on camera. There are asshats on both sides of the camera here.

It's possible the photographer (hereafter referred to as "the/this guy") was following the cops. That's okay. If the cops don't like it, that's okay too. Nobody has to like what's going on. What is wrong, as you point out, is how the cops *handle* not liking things. It seems clear to me they, or at least Officer McGrabby, didn't like being watched by this guy. He clearly did not like being recorded. Again, that's okay... But it's NOT okay to infringe on a citizens rights for that reason. It's NOT okay to grab, verbally abuse and lie. It's an ABUSE of authority.

The people give police officers special training, we give them special equipment and we grant them special authority not granted to civilians. In exchange for this the people expect and have every reason to demand all of these things be used with good judgement, discretion and an understanding of the laws being enforced NOT on personal feelings. Is that asking a lot? Perhaps. But we give cops a lot so we can ask a lot in return. We expect cops to be a "cut above" and if/when they're not, we have every right to hold them accountable. Don't like the occasional douche-bag getting up in your face? Can't handle someone knowing the law, their rights and calling you out on it? Tough noogies officer, that's the job.

It's called "Law Enforcement", not "Personal Feelings Enforcement" and I don't give a crap about how you *feel* about me standing in a public place, legally documenting the actions of a public servant or how you *feel* about me being a douche bag. You want the uniform, the baton, the lethal force option and all the bad-assery that comes with it? Great, but you bear the responsibility of being more than average, of being able to keep your cool even when d-bags are calling you out. That's the job. If you want a job where you can verbally abuse and harass those entrusted to your care, fine... Surrender your badge, your gun, your special authority and go teach high school.

...

 

[Browncoat]

He's been following these guys around all night...

My observation was that this was at least the 2nd time the officers had been filmed that night. Officer McGrabby doesn't state that they had been followed around all night, but he doesn't say just how many times, either. Regardless...that has absolutely zero to do with anything. It could be the 2nd, 3rd, 15th, or 108th time. He wasn't committing a crime. There is no law against filming or photographing traffic stops. No law against filming or photographing police officers.

My perspective on this comes from being a press photographer with a newspaper. I had several interactions with the police at accident and crime scenes, and while the majority of them are professional, there's always at least one overzealous jerk like Officer McGrabby here. Keep in mind that there is a press pass hanging around my neck, and some cops still act this way. I also have many law enforcement family, friends, and acquaintances. Yes, some of them are adrenaline-charged little boys who carry guns because they think it's cool to be in charge. How big of a jerk they are tends to be directly tied to the thickness of their mustache.

 

[Krs_2007]

Interesting, I guess when I stated that I thought there was a law well I didn't think about the guy being on foot. From some research he is only required to give name and DOB, ok I get that because he wasn't driving.

Oh well I am sure he will eventually meet up with the fate he so searches for so he can be a celebrity.

 

[Browncoat]

WARNING: LANGUAGE

Official statement issued by the Salt Lake City PD:

During the search for the missing child, a dog unfortunately was shot by a responding officer. The department regrets the unfortunate outcome of this incident. As with any firing of a service weapon, the department’s Internal Affairs Unit is conducting a review to determine whether the shooting conformed to policy. While the investigation has yet to be completed, the following is an account of what is known at this time:

Officers were searching nearby structures and yards for the missing child from Fillmore Street. Informed that the child was largely non-verbal and likely would not respond to calls by name, officers began to search the neighborhood. Officers knocked on the door of this address and received no answer. Given the urgency to find the child, an officer entered the back yard to see if he had possibly wandered back there. After entering the backyard, the officer encountered a dog that approached him in an aggressive manner. The officer, in turn, shot the dog. An investigation as to whether the officer’s actions conformed to policy is underway by the Internal Affairs Unit.

 

[rocketman122]

Here's the thing about this video. Yes, the guy had his sh*t together. Yes, he knows his rights. Yes, the cops go too far too fast. But what I hate about stuff like this is the guy with the camera was looking for this fight just so he could put the video up. Pick the video up here at 9:18...


He's been following these guys around all night hoping for just this kind of confrontation. He doesn't tell you that up front, so by the time you get there you're mad as hell at these cops. I believe they had every right to approach him for his name, and they had every right to approach him afterward to figure out what the hell he was doing recording every stop the cops were making that night. The cops could have gone about it better, starting with the question regarding multiple stops instead of grabbing at the camera, but that's just my opinion and don't deal with idiots and malcontents all day. I'm not defending the cops' actions, but neither do I defend this guy's tactics for getting this on camera. There are asshats on both sides of the camera here.

Exactly. you can see he was there with a screw you attitude. he came in with a "ill show you whos boss". he was looking for trouble. didnt answer pertinent info when the officer was being nice. screw him. if I was the cop, id look for a way to lock him up for the night. and it would include a lot of physical persuasion. he is a very bad example on how to deal with cops. he was polite in his wording but his attitude says it all. I wont call names but some come to mind here. he is the reason other photographers get trouble and an attitude from cops.

 

[Phillydog1958]

Overall, this was a good post. It's slightly provocative and it's a catalyst that allows for an exchange of differing ideology. I also learned something.

 

[Browncoat]

It's open season on that one. But, I'll play nice. These things have a way of working themselves out in the end.

 

[robbins.photo]

It is the way I do it.. or at least it should be.. sheesh.

Lol

 

[STM]

It certainly appeared to me that this guy was there for one reason only, and that was to provoke a confrontation with the police. He was lucky he found a patient one or he might have gotten his ass kicked.

 

[rocketman122]

It certainly appeared to me that this guy was there for one reason only, and that was to provoke a confrontation with the police. He was lucky he found a patient one or he might have gotten his ass kicked.

Exactly. it seemed it was a rookie that came over and spoke to him.


video of the dog killed. very sad. too impulsive sometimes. I feel for the guy.

 

[robbins.photo]

It certainly appeared to me that this guy was there for one reason only, and that was to provoke a confrontation with the police. He was lucky he found a patient one or he might have gotten his ass kicked.

Which really would have made for more compeling vidoe I think.. lol

 

[Krs_2007]

Which really would have made for more compeling vidoe I think.. lol

Yeah, I was waiting for him to get body slammed or at least pepper sprayed.

 

[STM]

Yeah, I was waiting for him to get body slammed or at least pepper sprayed.

Photography is not a crime but lucky for this guy neither is being a confrontational smart ass or he might have wound up in a pair of stylish matching stainless steel bracelets.

 

[crycocyon]

It's possible the photographer (hereafter referred to as "the/this guy") was following the cops. That's okay. If the cops don't like it, that's okay too. Nobody has to like what's going on. What is wrong, as you point out, is how the cops *handle* not liking things. It seems clear to me they, or at least Officer McGrabby, didn't like being watched by this guy. He clearly did not like being recorded. Again, that's okay... But it's NOT okay to infringe on a citizens rights for that reason. It's NOT okay to grab, verbally abuse and lie. It's an ABUSE of authority. The people give police officers special training, we give them special equipment and we grant them special authority not granted to civilians. In exchange for this the people expect and have every reason to demand all of these things be used with good judgement, discretion and an understanding of the laws being enforced NOT on personal feelings. Is that asking a lot? Perhaps. But we give cops a lot so we can ask a lot in return. We expect cops to be a "cut above" and if/when they're not, we have every right to hold them accountable. Don't like the occasional douche-bag getting up in your face? Can't handle someone knowing the law, their rights and calling you out on it? Tough noogies officer, that's the job. It's called "Law Enforcement", not "Personal Feelings Enforcement" and I don't give a crap about how you *feel* about me standing in a public place, legally documenting the actions of a public servant or how you *feel* about me being a douche bag. You want the uniform, the baton, the lethal force option and all the bad-assery that comes with it? Great, but you bear the responsibility of being more than average, of being able to keep your cool even when d-bags are calling you out. That's the job. If you want a job where you can verbally abuse and harass those entrusted to your care, fine... Surrender your badge, your gun, your special authority and go teach high school. ...

One of the best posts I ever read on here. Exactly what I've thought about cops in the USA since I got here. Some of them just have to be trained better and learn about professionalism and defending the public trust rather than pushing their personal agendas. And that includes unnecessary force.

 

[RocketCowboy]

This is only a law in some states. Note that Texas (where this video took place) does NOT have this law.

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - clears up a lot about this entire issue.

Thanks for the link. Looks to be some very thorough information there.

I agree that the photog was within his rights both in being on the corner and for filming, but both he and the officer did not handle the encounter from the position of trying to avoid escalation. It's my opinion that both the photog and the officer were looking for an escalation, and fortunately neither were lucky enough to get what they wanted.

It's anecdotal information, but I've been hearing an increasing number of reports from people taking pictures of courthouses being confronted by LEOs and questioned as to their motives. From the link above, I take this as falling under the "consensual" encounter description, even though an officer may make it appear to be more than that from his tone of voice. The question on whether the photog was free to go is valid, and then I would have left it at that. That said, it's easier to review in hindsight than while it's happening.

 

[STM]

Thanks for the link. Looks to be some very thorough information there.

I agree that the photog was within his rights both in being on the corner and for filming, but both he and the officer did not handle the encounter from the position of trying to avoid escalation. It's my opinion that both the photog and the officer were looking for an escalation, and fortunately neither were lucky enough to get what they wanted.

It's anecdotal information, but I've been hearing an increasing number of reports from people taking pictures of courthouses being confronted by LEOs and questioned as to their motives. From the link above, I take this as falling under the "consensual" encounter description, even though an officer may make it appear to be more than that from his tone of voice. The question on whether the photog was free to go is valid, and then I would have left it at that. That said, it's easier to review in hindsight than while it's happening.

A lot of things changed in our country after 9/11/01. Federal Courthouses and other buildings can become targets for terrorists. And not just of the Arab persuasion, look at Timothy McVeigh. One need only look at what a royal pain in the butt it is to fly nowadays.