Author Topic: Photographers and people paranoia (Read 8003 times)

vonkara · « **on:** November 10, 2009, 13:18 »

I don't know about you, but taking pictures in public can become a crazy experience but also a good one. To say the least, it's often noticed by people. I would add, the more big is your lens the more attention you get.

I never had a real bad experience when taking pictures in public but I know some who had. Though, it's obvious that my way of making people clearly feel I am not there to take pics of them help.

I always need to watch my camera LCD when people get in front of me or play with my settings. Even more, take my camera down and look annoyed at their presence lol.

I think most people love to watch others on the internet but are very affraid of what a photographer can make with their own pictures. There is a video showing a photographer having an hilarious/shocking discussion with a subway officer in Los Angeles. Now the photographers are obviously working for Al Qaeda

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY2cCPW3H7g&feature=player_embedded#[/youtube]

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** November 10, 2009, 13:49 »

How embarrassing for the police...

le_cyclope · « **Reply #2 on:** November 10, 2009, 14:22 »

hmmm
Stupid and arrogant officer...
but to me this photographer was not «taking pictures»; he was clearly provoking the officer!

So by acting like this he is not helping us photographers! He is not «fighting» for the freedom of speech or whatever, he is trying to attract people on his website/blog/whatever site.

What a waste of time and energy!

Claude

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** November 10, 2009, 14:24 »

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.

le_cyclope · « **Reply #4 on:** November 10, 2009, 14:41 »

I agree that a photographer should have the right to shoot whatever he wants, but if a ~~stupid~~ officer ask you if you plan to sell your photos to Al Qaeda, just say no!

It is not a problem of law enforcement, we are here in presence of two ~~stupid~~ guys provoking each other!

Claude

MatHayward · « **Reply #5 on:** November 10, 2009, 15:19 »

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.

melastmohican · « **Reply #6 on:** November 10, 2009, 16:18 »

Quote from: MatHayward on November 10, 2009, 15:19

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.

That's exactly what I thought. Maybe he was warned in the past so he returned with a trap for this police officer. I am not saying police was right but it seems like he was provoking them. These so called photographer's right activist do this mostly to get more views/diggs/exposure so they can feel great about themselves.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** November 10, 2009, 16:26 »

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."

elvinstar · « **Reply #8 on:** November 10, 2009, 16:56 »

Quote

Like I said, I don't see what's wrong with doing something to prove your point.

I agree completely. If people don't do things to prove their point, others may never even know that a problem exists. Maybe I just get upset seeing tax dollars spent uselessly.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** November 10, 2009, 19:59 »

"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? "

Yes. Without any other reason, since taking photographs in the subway is legal.

vonkara · « **Reply #11 on:** November 10, 2009, 19:59 »

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

LSD72 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 10, 2009, 21:33 »

Looks like a fitting place to put one of my Zazzle Shirts..lol.

Fred · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2009, 07:58 »

Quote from: MatHayward on November 10, 2009, 19:46

Quote from: elvinstar on November 10, 2009, 16:56
Quote
Like I said, I don't see what's wrong with doing something to prove your point.

I agree completely. If people don't do things to prove their point, others may never even know that a problem exists. Maybe I just get upset seeing tax dollars spent uselessly.

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.

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.

Jack Schiffer · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2009, 07:59 »

To defuse a situation what is wrong with showing a business card and ID and promoting yours self as a freelance photographer instead of trouble making photographer. I can find all the photo opps I need with out stirring trouble for my self or others.

shutterdrop · « **Reply #15 on:** November 11, 2009, 09:39 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** November 11, 2009, 09:42 »

No, he co-operated. He gave his ID when asked.

"Determine your intent" - How are you going to do that?

"Are you going to sell your pictures to Al Queda to blow up our subway?"
"Aw, heck, you asked the right question. Yes I am. Dang it."
"A-ha!"

Fred · « **Reply #17 on:** November 11, 2009, 10:05 »

Quote from: shutterdrop on November 11, 2009, 09:39

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. ...

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

annabelle496 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 11, 2009, 11:16 »

Personally, I think the photographer should have explained what he was shooting. In acting evasive, he obvously arouses suspicion.

I have done soots in sensitive ares, metro, airports, hydro facilites. On most occasions, I am approached by a security officer, which is normal.

I answer their questions and even offer my id's. I have never been detained, nor, ejected from a place.

This photographer was obviously looking to cause a problem by refusing to respect the situation more than anything else and it does not help other photographers in the future.

A.

Fred · « **Reply #19 on:** November 11, 2009, 13:58 »

Quote from: annabelle496 on November 11, 2009, 11:16

Personally, I think the photographer should have explained what he was shooting. In acting evasive, he obvously arouses suspicion.

I have done soots in sensitive ares, metro, airports, hydro facilites. On most occasions, I am approached by a security officer, which is normal.

I answer their questions and even offer my id's. I have never been detained, nor, ejected from a place.

This photographer was obviously looking to cause a problem by refusing to respect the situation more than anything else and it does not help other photographers in the future.

A.

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

litifeta · « **Reply #20 on:** November 11, 2009, 23:44 »

In my opinion, this topic has been well covered enough so that every police officer would be aware of what is right and what is wrong.

I hear someone claiming the photographers are activists, personally I think the police are the activists.

The cops know the photographers are allowed, but by claiming ignorance, they are trying to boot up public support of getting rid of photographers from public areas.

i have had stand up fights with cops after they dragged my 5D from around my neck and starting going through the images and "accidentally" deleting them.

The police know the score. They are after a fight.

helix7 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 12, 2009, 01:05 »

Quote from: annabelle496 on November 11, 2009, 11:16

...This photographer was obviously looking to cause a problem by refusing to respect the situation more than anything else and it does not help other photographers in the future.

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.

annabelle496 · « **Reply #22 on:** November 12, 2009, 07:36 »

Quote from: helix7 on November 12, 2009, 01:05

Quote from: annabelle496 on November 11, 2009, 11:16
...This photographer was obviously looking to cause a problem by refusing to respect the situation more than anything else and it does not help other photographers in the future.

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.

Not at all, it's not damaging to converse with the officer and offering id's and explaining what you do.

It's diffusing a situation and building a sense of trust and cooperation. More times than not, the officers wil continue on their beat and leave you be.

Remember, this photographer had a hidden camera, which, I doubt he takes with him every time he does a shoot. So, my belief was more the fact he was out for provokation and confrontation.

If you are polite and agreable with people, than, more than likely, they will be polite and agreable with you.

Thus, less agravation and you're able to continue on with your shoot.

A.

You get a lot farther with people.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photographers and people paranoia (Read 8003 times)

vonkara

Sean Locke Photography

le_cyclope

Sean Locke Photography

le_cyclope

MatHayward

melastmohican

Sean Locke Photography

elvinstar

MatHayward

Sean Locke Photography

vonkara

LSD72

Fred

Jack Schiffer

shutterdrop

Sean Locke Photography

Fred

annabelle496

Fred

litifeta

helix7

annabelle496

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors