Homerland Security

[saycheese76]

I tried to shoot some electrical substation equipment from a public road and was told no. If it's so secret, put a damn 50' fence around it. I was pretty pissed. They asked me why I wanted to shoot that stuff. I wanted to tell them it was none of their business as I was on public property but thought better of it.

 

[Easy_Target]

thought i posted this, but I just mentioned it at the end of a pic post...
Some photo sites have mirrored the incident, but I wanted to put it here to let as many people know about the abuses against our constitution that are going on in the name of security. Everyone needs to know about the >>> the police state that is already here <<< (fixed that for you) and what it means to our rights as photographers.


P.S. please don't bring politics into this, but feel free to criticize, praise, or talk about how our government is dealing with our rights and constitution in a peaceful way without putting down groups of people based on beliefs of any kind, if we all agree to that then we wont have any problems !!

We can't bring politics into this, but you expect us to talk about:

• Infringement of Constitutional Rights
• Security Theater
• Government Decision/Behavior
• The Results of the Above Three Mentioned Items with Respect to Photographers

and also at the same time:

• Remain so politically correct that we cannot say, imply, insinuate, reference, cite, criticize, interpret or conjecture about anything that could possibly in any way shape or form that could be interpreted as offending, putting down, denigrating, disparaging, belittling, deriding, mocking or belligerent to anyone who may or may not read the post that could possibly be offended by it.

What was the point of making this thread then? You might as well have said, "Let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya, while we're sitting in the detention centers aka concentration camps in the US."

 

[THORHAMMER]

East target, please don't troll.

If you don't appreciate this kind of news
As it relates to photographers then simply
Go on to another thread.

I only posted cause I thought the forum could benefit
From hearing what's going on out there.

This is not the arena for political debate if that's a problem
Then take it up with the mods not me...

I think a tiny amount of articulation would allow
You to disagree as much as possible without personally attacking
Any political groups or people, if that's not possible then your
Clearly not grown up enough for this thread.

 

[Easy_Target]

First, that was not a troll. It was a criticism of the fact that your original post contradicted itself.

Second, I had not yet read any subsequent posts made after the first two comments, so I didn't see the mod statement of bringing it back on topic.

Third, there's no need to discuss anything in a thread when the OP is unable to start a thread without contradicting himself, in the first post no less.

This is a clarification that I will not be participating in thread as of this point.

I bid you all adieu.

 

[Joves]

Please do and let me know..... it is more difficult than you think. At the most, you'll get disorderly conduct, court will dismiss, and you'll have a bunch of time wasted.

If I end up in a jail then it is infringement of rights and, my laywer will get it to work. He is good at those sorts of thing.

 

[usayit]

If I end up in a jail then it is infringement of rights and, my laywer will get it to work. He is good at those sorts of thing.

Good luck.. seriously.... claiming infringement of rights does not work on a disorderly conduct charge. It is a catch all charge that is a separate issue from your rights as a photographer. Simply mouthing off to a police officer could net you on a disorderly charge.

1) You are on a public sidewalk taking pictures
2) Police officer tells you to move on.
3) You escalate an argument with the police officer.
4) You are taken in on two charges: one involves photography the other is disorderly conduct.
5) You spend hours and hours waiting for paperwork while your family waits for you.
6) The photography charge is dropped (duh!!) but the disorderly conduct charge is still up.
7) You state that you have every right to take pictures on the public property.
8) Judge informs you that the issue here is not whether or not you are allowed to take a picture but whether or not you are guilty of disturbing the peace or behaving in a disruptive manner towards the officer.
9) You plead and apologize to the judge and hope for the misdemeanor is dropped.. it is
10) You leave completely wasting a days worth of fun and enjoyment

11) You contemplate getting a lawyer and bringing up charges. Lawyer laughs at you because the original charges involving infringement of your rights were actually dropped. He explains that it is like a publicly drunk guy arguing that the police impeded his walk home.


Trust me.... you are at a complete and utter disadvantage. Unless you have a boat load of money and leveraged (lawyers on retainer) like professional journalists representing a news media outlet, you won't get far. In those cases, there is a lot more in stake (getting the story or not). I was a lot younger and naive back then. Now a days, I simply take down the officer's name and badge number and head down to the precinct to file a complaint. Twice, I actually got an apology and promise that officers will be informed. It is a whole lot more productive than getting held up.

Your intention is completely naive.... My opinion is that more photographers resist aggressively at an officer rather than in a court room/precinct, it just makes it worse for the next photographer that runs into that officer.


From wikipedia:
"Many types of unruly conduct may fit the definition of disorderly conduct, as such statutes are often used as "catch-all" crimes. Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when people are behaving in a disruptive manner to themselves or others, but present no serious public danger. Disorderly conduct is typically classified as a misdemeanor."

Note that it is a catch-all that doesn't encompass the original reason leading up to the events. It is a VERY VERY loosely defined charge that can essentially be used by an officer to diffuse any situation... more than likely it will be dropped and thank god it is just a misdemeanor.

it isn't worth it. Just fight it through more productive means. If it were that easy, there would be a bunch of us photographers walking around with payouts from our winnings. The law would have to be more explicit so that the governing body would stop loosing.... things don't change... because it is that difficult to change them.

 

[Harmony]

I first saw this story HERE.

 

[skieur]

To get back to the law, you do not need a permit to photograph anywhere, unless you are using a crew, models, technicians, and extensive equipment. Legally the police need probable cause to stop you and taking photos is not illegal, so no probable cause exists.

Police can ask but have no right to demand identification, since there is no probable cause. Police have no right to detain you for the same reason and to ask you any questions. One photographer took a civil rights lawyer with him to one of these types of locations and the result is that the police are being sued.

skieur

 

[RyanLilly]

Usayit is right, The best thing to do if the police are being very persistent is to respectfully ask for their name and badge number, and move along. Filing a complaint will go a lot farther at adjusting their point of view than arguing with them. Then walk or drive away until you no longer see any police, then go back and get your shot.

 

[custom100]

WOW, these are things that I'm not looking forward now. Though I'm not sure if we are running into the same issues in Canada. But I guess we can run into these anywhere anytime.

 

[skieur]

WOW, these are things that I'm not looking forward now. Though I'm not sure if we are running into the same issues in Canada. But I guess we can run into these anywhere anytime.

Not in French Canada, where I do a lot of shooting.

skieur

 

[JerryPH]

I'm *in* Quebec too (where else do you call "French Canada"?). You are not going to win here either. French or English Canada is all the same... piss off the police and you are going for a ride in the back seat of someone's squad car. If necessary, they'll tack on resisting arrest and belligerent behaviour or public nuscance or not following the orders of a police officer.

Either way, your day is screwed. Your chances of suing the police in Canada are as good as suing anyone from the medical profession here... NONE. Your chances of winning such a court case *if* you could get in are about 100% less... lol

 

[skieur]

I'm *in* Quebec too (where else do you call "French Canada"?).... lol

You obviously have not spent time in Acadian New Brunswick, for example. It is more French than Quebec City or Montreal.

skieur

 

[JCGee]

It's amazing some of your views on this. Let's step outside the typical box of "ME" for a moment and throw yourself into an officer's shoes.

For one, they are doing their job. They are most likely told what do look for and what to do about it. Here is a catch....not all officers like they are details they assign, contrary to what Joves will have you think; that they are licking their chops JUST to infringe upon your rights. Joves, wear a tin foil hat whenever you don't go to the harbor for night shots you won't take just for that civil suit that won't happen.

Two. Some people may think it's odd that someone would want to take a pic of a electrical substation and question the photographer's intentions. That goes in tandem with part 1 where they are most likely put on detail to notice anything 'suspicious'....well taking a pic of an inanimate object, of possible terroristic interest, most likely will be deemed suspicious. Why not just offer the information when asked? Why immediately have this chip on your shoulder and think "none of your business?!". Sorry to say, but in todays world, it is their business.

Three. Maybe the Harbor in question is on high alert for some reason, unbenounced to the public.

RyanLilly has it right. If you feel THAT strongly about being told you can't take a pic, get their badge/name and file a complaint. Officers have to deal with jackasses all day long, why be added to that list?

 

[THORHAMMER]

I used to think it was based on some real fear or sense of security after networking with about 15 other guys who have been stopped and after all of my experiences there I know it's half mis-education and half "Do what I say" -ness

I never object to the questions, just when an officer lies or doesn't know about the law hes supposed to uphold, and then goes to give me an unlawful order, then the chain of personal respect diminished and over time I start to (Sadly) see them more as hired guns then police that are bound to our countries constitution at all. The only reason I get worked up about it is that it's easy to see a freedom slip away,nearly impossible to ever get it back after that. Also it's gotten a LOT worse in other countries like the UK. it's our right to notice these patterns and trends and lobby or try to bring attention to any attacks of our profession / art that involve subverting the law to exclude a freedom provided under our first amendment ; that's where I'm coming from, turn your heads and next thing well no tbe aloud to own cameras without a permit.