Major Journalism Question

[MarcusM]

It is selective persicution, and the LEO does not have that kind of authority.

lol, this struck me as kind of funny. A judge who doesn't know how to spell "persecution"? I understand about typos, but the "I" is nowhere near the "E" on the keyboard.

 

[MarcusM]

Also, to add to the discussion, I'm sure the laws vary from state to state. When I lived in California we were in San Diego on a business trip, and I was with the president of the company and other co-workers and we were all bodysurfing at the beach.

The waves were pretty heavy one morning and one slammed the president against the beach and I think knocked him out for a second. When he got up he was having trouble moving. He ended up fracturing a vertebrae and an ambulance came out and they strapped him in a gurney. I had my camera and one of our co-workers (who was a happy-go-lucky guy who was kind of laughing about the incident and was very close to the president) urged me to take some photos of the president. So I did, and one of the EMTs warned me that it is illegal to take photographs of an injured person without their consent.

My coworker informed him it's ok, and they kind of just gave a disapproving look and didn't say much else.

 

[Seefutlung]

As a former Photo Journalist, I agree with all the statements against the LEO. As a news event with significant social/community ramifications, you had every right as a US citizen to document the event, up to and including capturing images of the student.

Now comes the tough part ... you need to be pro-active and right the wrong that occurred against you. Contact the local paper ... the police administration, ACLU and if you have a family attorney ... when him/her as well.

Remember that the easiest road would be to do nothing ... but the honorable man does what is right regardless of the consequence. The easy road won't take you very far in life ... the steeper the road, the harder the climb ... but also the greater the view.

Gary

 

[Seefutlung]

Also, to add to the discussion, I'm sure the laws vary from state to state. When I lived in California we were in San Diego on a business trip, and I was with the president of the company and other co-workers and we were all bodysurfing at the beach.

The waves were pretty heavy one morning and one slammed the president against the beach and I think knocked him out for a second. When he got up he was having trouble moving. He ended up fracturing a vertebrae and an ambulance came out and they strapped him in a gurney. I had my camera and one of our co-workers (who was a happy-go-lucky guy who was kind of laughing about the incident and was very close to the president) urged me to take some photos of the president. So I did, and one of the EMTs warned me that it is illegal to take photographs of an injured person without their consent.

My coworker informed him it's ok, and they kind of just gave a disapproving look and didn't say much else.

It is not illegal to photograph a person without their consent, it is "illegal" to interfere with emergency personnel in the performance of their work. The EMT was imposing his moral judgment on the situation, similar to the LEO above ... thinking/assuming that you're just some kid with a camera and the entire scene will end up on some internet site in a non-journalistic context.

The general rule is that if it's in public then it's fair game. There are some exceptions to this general rule, some are confining while other exceptions are broadening.

Gary

 

[Rand0m411]

Actually, even a real police officer requires a court order to confiscate your personal property. Confiscating your camera and/or media is no different than confiscating your car, table saw, computer or coffee pot. It can be done but not without a court order.

An officer can only confiscate ILLEGAL items without a court order and last time I checked a camera isn't exactly the same as a bag of weed.

Yeah, I kinda kicked myself for the last part I wrote because I knew it wasnt legally accurate after I wrote it. I need to remember the edit function.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

This is the very reason we have to fight for our rights- now, more than ever.

Yes, you should report the jackass who took your camera. Gary is right- stand up for your rights.

http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2008/04/07/the-story-behind-the-pictures/

 

[RyanLilly]

Legal is where it is outlined in the law. Moral is where an individual executed action based on his personal values.

I am NOT defending the guard, I am all for him getting his wrist slapped as an incentive for him to learn the law... however you or I feel, in the guard's eyes and or whatever reason besides that, he had a moral obligation to get rid of the pictures and he exercised it, much to his possible detriment.

Again, morally he felt he had all the rights he needed to do what he did. If a police officer doesn't know the law... he'd better learn fast... or find another avenue of employment.

I agree that this was the case, but the officer was on duty is foremost a government official, he/she has an obligation to protect the rights of people and uphold the law regardless of their personal views.

The other question is did he "take" your camera, as in just ripped it from yours hands, Or did he say, "hey give me that." I you hand him the camera? you just gave him consent to take it. Did he say, "delete you pictures or I'll arrest you? Or I'll Shoot you?, probably not. Police officers are very good at convincing people to give consent, thats just part of their job. You as the photographer, need to remember to stand up for your rights,

Cop:
"hey give me your camera!"

you:
"No."

Cop:
"you need to delete those photos."

You:
"No, I do not, we both Know our rights under the first amendment. Have a nice day."

That should be the end of it. Some times, especially for young people, it is hard to stand up to authority figures, but I you are knowledgeable, and know your rights there should be no problem.

Now if you went through this conversation, and the officer, still attempted to make physical contact with you, then He has committed assault, If he did touch you, he has committed battery, if he did take your camera, he has committed theft.

This however would be extreme, most police know their legal boundaries quite well, and the above conversation should suffice.

and always be polite and respectful, just as you would be with anyone.

 

[Judge Sharpe]

OK- Just because I am an attorney does not mean that my fingers always work the way I want.them to-and I did not review my post as I should have. Mea Cupa. OLO
Legality trumps morality always.
The photos were deleted at the time so there is nothing to return.
The LEO did not think about what he was doing, or thought, Here is a kid who I can tell what to do. His better course would be to have seized the camers, and then after preserving it, checked with his superiors and flet Chris have his say. The LEO took too much on himself.
Its over now- get on with life.
Judge Sharpe

 

[LiveWave]

Illegal, photojournalists then and now will always capture tragic moments. Back then we had people like Eddie Adams and Robert Capa. Today we have people like Micahel Yohn and James Nachtwey.

 

[Socrates]

he has no right to take your camera and delete the photos. Even if you had photos of the student he woulnt have that right im pretty sure.

I don't know the law in the U.K. and, in the U.S., the law differs among the states. However, in the state where I live, students do not have the same rights as adults. IF the school had an established policy that students are not to carry cameras in or on school property, he would have lost not only the photos but also his camera!

 

[Photographer Clayton]

IF the school had an established policy that students are not to carry cameras in or on school property, he would have lost not only the photos but also his camera!

They know me, and they know I am a photographer and starting photojournalism, so they let me carry my camera on school grounds.

 

[Socrates]

They know me, and they know I am a photographer and starting photojournalism, so they let me carry my camera on school grounds.

In that case, you might want to schedule a heart-to-heart with the principal. If you're known for that reason and permitted to carry your camera, then obviously it's reasonable that you use it. Try to politely determine what went wrong. Try to determine why the officer apparently contradicted the permission that you received from the school authorities.

 

[kundalini]

They know me, and they know I am a photographer and starting photojournalism, so they let me carry my camera on school grounds.

Perfect. This would have been the exact reason to politely but fervently objected to the request to dispose of your images. Now you need to persue the matter further.

 

[Seefutlung]

In that case, you might want to schedule a heart-to-heart with the principal. If you're known for that reason and permitted to carry your camera, then obviously it's reasonable that you use it. Try to politely determine what went wrong. Try to determine why the officer apparently contradicted the permission that you received from the school authorities.

In a perfect society ... that may be the best course ... but if the OP is serious about righting this wrong then don't except the principal to:
1) understand 1st amendment rights and freedom of the press; and
2) respect the concerns of a student.

The images contained in the camera are a liability for the principal and the school district ... the principal will place his well being and job security on the top of his list of concerns ... the concern for the student will be right below getting his/her clothes from the cleaners. (It will be the exceptional principal that thinks otherwise.) Similarly, most attorney's will feel likewise about a kids 1st amendment's right being bullied and trampled by the school district and ... as Judge Sharp above stated, "... just get over it."

As a former journalist and as one who has had to face a trial and the wrath of the Anaheim Police Department over 1st Amendment rights ... I take all these instances seriously.

Gary

PS- As a course of what is proper and of honor you should allow the school the opportunity to remedy the situation ... but don't hold your breath with the expectation of a positive, pro-1st amendment outcome.
G

PSPS- Amongst other actions, you should enlist the services of a reporter from your school newspaper and write a series of stories on what happened to you and the aftermath as you attempt to reverse the wrong. Interview elected officials, the Police Chief, ACLA officials ... and publish it all ... if you think they school was brutal in destroying your images ... wait until they get wind of this approach ... contact local electronic talk shows and newspapers ... start a blog of your findings. You will truly learn a lot of how "The System" works ... a real eye opener.
G

PSPSPS- If you do follow this course , keep me in the loop, I'd love to follow the action.
G

PSPSPSPS- If you are interested in journalism as a career ... this course of action, especially if executed by you in a leadership position ... will show conviction, moral fiber and will be instrumental as a tool to help you be admitted into the college of your choice. On the flip side ... there is always a flip side ... the school authorities my define your actions as "defiance of authority" and keep tossing referrals at you until you are expelled.
G

 

[skieur]

I agree that this was the case, but the officer was on duty is foremost a government official, he/she has an obligation to protect the rights of people and uphold the law regardless of their personal views.

The other question is did he "take" your camera, as in just ripped it from yours hands, Or did he say, "hey give me that." I you hand him the camera? you just gave him consent to take it. Did he say, "delete you pictures or I'll arrest you? Or I'll Shoot you?, probably not. Police officers are very good at convincing people to give consent, thats just part of their job. You as the photographer, need to remember to stand up for your rights,

Cop:
"hey give me your camera!"

you:
"No."

Cop:
"you need to delete those photos."

You:
"No, I do not, we both Know our rights under the first amendment. Have a nice day."

That should be the end of it. Some times, especially for young people, it is hard to stand up to authority figures, but I you are knowledgeable, and know your rights there should be no problem.

Now if you went through this conversation, and the officer, still attempted to make physical contact with you, then He has committed assault, If he did touch you, he has committed battery, if he did take your camera, he has committed theft.

This however would be extreme, most police know their legal boundaries quite well, and the above conversation should suffice.

and always be polite and respectful, just as you would be with anyone.

Giving someone an item due to intimidation real or apparent constitutes theft in law.

skieur