MicrostockGroup

How embarrassing for the police...

I disagree.  It's no different than a news expose.  He wasn't sneaking in the control room to shoot the track layout or whatever the cop thinks Al Queda would need.  He was standing in a public area doing his thing.

What an ass-munch.  Why would anyone choose to intentionally provoke a police officer?  How did he have a hidden camera recording at that exact time?  I would guess because he went in there specifically to be confronted by police rather than to take photos. 

I sure would hate to be that guy if he has somebody breaking into his house.  Somehow I think he would be a little more polite to the cops. 

Like I said, I don't see what's wrong with doing something to prove your point.  I thought it was funny that the cop couldn't see the point the guy was making.  The policeman was making completely unwarranted accusations and threats. 

"Is it illegal to take photographs?"
"No."
"Why are you detaining me?"
"To see if you're doing something illegal."
"Is it illegal to take photographs?"
"No."
"Why are you detaining me?"
"To see if you're doing something illegal."

So what did this guy accomplish? 

What was the terror threat level when he was asking the guy questions?  Was it completely out of line to consider the possibility that somebody taking a photo of the entrance to a subway was up to no good? 

I would much rather err on the side of caution than having our police turn a blind eye to something that raises the hair on the back of their neck.  Anyone that sets out to screw with the cops simply to prove a point deserves whatever hassle they get in my opinion.

I take pics in the subway down here and I'm still able to keep my liberty and get out of there. The policeman asked clearly " I want to know why you take pictures here". I'll probably answered " I use them for selling on the internet"

It's obvious that I would go directly in prison in Los Angeles lol. There is the problem  

Erring on the side of caution really does NOT get it.  If the cop here really wanted to be cautious he could have just blown the guy away -- thats what they did in London.  I would much rather risk a terrorist incident than live in a police state.  Risks of being injured or killed in a terrorist attack are much lower than just about any of the daily risks we all take like crossing the street, or driving to work.  People are almost as likely to be injured or killed mistakenly by a policeman - erring on the side of caution - as they are to be injured or killed in a terrorist attack.  In the U.S. we have been protected for a long time from police erring on the side of caution and overstepping their authority in the pursuit of ordinary crime.  We can't give that up now and let the overzealous or power hungry police officers and departments hide behind the threat of terrorism so they can terrorize us.   

You has a photographer have certain rights. A police officer has certain rights. The police have the right to detain you until they determine who you are and determine you intent. If your intent is determined to be legal there are no issues, if your intent is determined to be illegal you will be arrested and jailed. Then you may face arrainement and subject to bail. Your equipment may be confiscated and may held as evident. It is not worth it. Co-operated with the Police and make life easier for yourself.

If a Peace Officer ask for identification, you must presentation your I.D. It is the law. If you do not co-operate with officer you can be charged with resisting arrest. In this photographer's case, he did not co-operate and his conduct made himself  vulnerable to disorderly conduct.

Please be civil with police and save your arguement for the court room. When you argue with police you loose, if you fight with the police you loose and get a free ride downtown and a room at the cross-bar hilton.

I think this photographer was trying to create an issue and record it on a hidden camera.

 

Only if there is probable cause.  Taking pictures in an unposted unregulated area is not probable cause.  If the officer had probable cause then he needed to express it to the photographer.  It is pretty clear to me that the officer is either very poorly trained or just wanted to throw his weight around.

fred

Perhaps, but the police also need to recognize - or be trained to recognize - the limits of their authority.  Belligerence from a police officer overstepping his authority does not help other - more responsible or more knowledgeable - policemen in the future either. 

fred

I think that by willingly giving in to unjustified suspicion and allowing an officer to inspect your ID simply because you have a camera is far more damaging to the future relations between police and photographers. Exercising your rights in the situation would be the better course of action, instead of giving the police officer the idea that it is ok to harass other photographers in the future.

And exactly what "situation" should photographers be respectful of? The fact that they have a camera in a public space? When did that become grounds for suspicion of a terrorist activity? Oh, right 9/11, the terror attack that would have clearly been thwarted by simply preventing photography of the World Trade Center.

Photography isn't a suspicious activity unless you allow it to be. I'm not sure how it got to be that carrying a camera into a subway is one of the most suspicious things you can do, just short of actually carrying a bomb or weapon into a subway.