Police Harassing Timelapse Photographer (Video title)

[redjupiter58]

You can talk about your rights as much as you like but what clearly obvious from this video is that he was trying to provoke them and he succeeded only in screwing up and turning them against him and they shut him down. Duh.....

 

[Joey_Ricard]

You can talk about your rights as much as you like but what clearly obvious from this video is that he was trying to provoke them and he succeeded only in screwing up and turning them against him and they shut him down. Duh.....

I agree -

I'd hate getting harassed too, but those cops don't know what time lapse is, much less anything about photography other than, the dude is on the roadside late at night doing something with some equipment. Sure they are within their work description to check it and the person out. How is this that hard to understand?
The cop was asking to see ID? How is this so hard for someone to understand?

Now maybe after checking the dude out, they then make him leave for no reason if he is in a safe position not affecting others, then maybe i'd have a problem.

 

[jonathon94]

You can talk about your rights as much as you like but what clearly obvious from this video is that he was trying to provoke them and he succeeded only in screwing up and turning them against him and they shut him down. Duh.....

I somewhat have to agree. I believe we should hold up our rights the best way that we can but at the same time he does appear to be provoking them.

On the contrary though, he has every right to record both their video and audio on the street. So they were wrong when they told him otherwise

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-

 

[jake337]

You can talk about your rights as much as you like but what clearly obvious from this video is that he was trying to provoke them and he succeeded only in screwing up and turning them against him and they shut him down. Duh.....

I somewhat have to agree. I believe we should hold up our rights the best way that we can but at the same time he does appear to be provoking them.

On the contrary though, he has every right to record both their video and audio on the street. So they were wrong when they told him otherwise

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-

Where did he provoke them??????? The officer asked for ID, and he said no, which is completely within his rights. End of story.


Next it will be in home searches without probable cause or warrants.


Many have died and will die for our rights. I plan to uphold mine as well.

 

[jonathon94]

the whole time he attempted to make it harder for the cops. What was so wrong with giving his Id to ensure he is not a known criminal

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-

 

[imagemaker46]

I listened to the first 15 seconds of the video and it is obvious that he is baiting the cops, he started the whole process. I understand that he has rights to shoot, he stated that right off the bat with the cops, and for that he ended up making the situation worse. It's guys like this that create the problems for everyone with a camera. What was he shooting, was he in a sensitive area, was he standing in a dangerous area. Inspite of those that have said it doesn't matter what he was shooting, it really does, even if he does have the right to shoot it.

You know there are times when being respectful will get you no problems from anyone. Opening up with, "I know my rights, you can't do this and I don't have to show you ID, and the police have bothered me before" That's not going to get you anywhere. They aren't wrong in stopping to ask questions, that is part of their job. I've delt with police in alot of different situations and acting like a dick gets you nowhere.

 

[tirediron]

You know there are times when being respectful will get you no problems from anyone. Opening up with, "I know my rights, you can't do this and I don't have to show you ID, and the police have bothered me before" That's not going to get you anywhere. They aren't wrong in stopping to ask questions, that is part of their job. I've delt with police in alot of different situations and acting like a dick gets you nowhere.

While I agree in principle, my concern here is that if in fact the photographer was within his rights to withhold his ID (and it doesn't make sense to me that he would be since that would really limit the police in their abiltity to do their job), why were the police continuing to to demand it?

 

[jake337]

To lighten up the mood:

 

[gsgary]

To be fair whilst I understand that people don't like being monitored chances are records of "random guy caught taking photos late at night" are not going to do much and most times probably won't even be filed cause of the paperwork involved. Sometimes giving a little just helps ease the situation somewhat.

*prepares to be bombarded by people defending their rights*

What are you talking about Overread??? Is this a UK think or a US thing??? I'm just *guessing* it makes a diference....

Never give in to the police, my partners works for Derbyshire Constabulary and it drives her mad **** them

 

[imagemaker46]

You know there are times when being respectful will get you no problems from anyone. Opening up with, "I know my rights, you can't do this and I don't have to show you ID, and the police have bothered me before" That's not going to get you anywhere. They aren't wrong in stopping to ask questions, that is part of their job. I've delt with police in alot of different situations and acting like a dick gets you nowhere.

While I agree in principle, my concern here is that if in fact the photographer was within his rights to withhold his ID (and it doesn't make sense to me that he would be since that would really limit the police in their abiltity to do their job), why were the police continuing to to demand it?

If he had nothing to hide, then why continue to provoke, they look, they say no problem, thanks and have a safe night. Instead he continues to push it looking for his 15 minutes of youtube fame. The police could quite of easily just said fine, cuffed him and away he goes. Without a background on the guy, the police may have had a complaint, maybe he fit the decription of someone they were looking for. What's the point of pushing a matter that could have been settled in a matter of minutes. I don't understand the mentality, may be just my being in my mid 50's, maybe it's having worked around security for years as a photographer. I'm all for my rights and the rights of others, but personally, I'd rather just say sure no problem, and enjoyed the rest of my night.

 

[o hey tyler]

the whole time he attempted to make it harder for the cops. What was so wrong with giving his Id to ensure he is not a known criminal

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-

This is what you don't understand. If people don't uphold their own rights, you're basically being oppressed by the police force. They had absolutely no right to question him, or ask for his ID. He was WITHIN HIS RIGHTS PROVIDED TO HIM CONSTITUTIONALLY AT BIRTH to take photos there.

When Bush was president and I was still in high school, I didn't stand for the pledge of allegiance (Heck, I may not even stand for it today because I fundamentally disagree with it). Numerous times, in numerous classes I was sent to the principals office by various right wing school teachers who thought I was committing heresy. The thing is, I HAVE the right to not stand up for the pledge of allegiance, and I could have had any of the teachers reprimanded or fired for the way they treated me. I was never disrespectful or disruptive. I just chose to remain seated quietly at my desk while the pledge took place. I never once folded to the administration, or to pressure from "superiors" because I had done nothing wrong.

What you fail to realize is that this guy is in the same boat as I was.

 

[tirediron]

What you fail to realize is that this guy is in the same boat as I was.

Was he? Really? As a student in school of course you were exercising a legal right, BUT, was this individual on the bridge doing the same thing? I'm not so sure. In most places the police are granted certain rights to ask questions in the reasonable performance of their duties (NOTE: I am not saying I agree with this, just stating it as a fact), and to demand explanations of what they deem to be unusual or suspicious behaviour. I find it odd that a country or state handicap a police force by granting an individual the right to refuse to answer these questions without repurcussion.

Granted, you can always refuse to answer, but the police can usually respond by detaining you.

Again, I ask the question: Did the photographer have the right to refuse to answer? Did the police have the right to detain him if he did refuse to answer?

 

[o hey tyler]

What you fail to realize is that this guy is in the same boat as I was.

Was he? Really? As a student in school of course you were exercising a legal right, BUT, was this individual on the bridge doing the same thing? I'm not so sure. In most places the police are granted certain rights to ask questions in the reasonable performance of their duties (NOTE: I am not saying I agree with this, just stating it as a fact), and to demand explanations of what they deem to be unusual or suspicious behaviour. I find it odd that a country or state handicap a police force by granting an individual the right to refuse to answer these questions without repurcussion.

Granted, you can always refuse to answer, but the police can usually respond by detaining you.

Again, I ask the question: Did the photographer have the right to refuse to answer? Did the police have the right to detain him if he did refuse to answer?

The police need to have probable cause to look at the guy's ID. He was pointing a camera at a freeway, not moving it, taking long exposures. There was no probable cause, and no need for him to roll over and show them his ID. This isn't Nazi Germany.

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!

 

[NickA]

This is what you don't understand. If people don't uphold their own rights, you're basically being oppressed by the police force. They had absolutely no right to question him, or ask for his ID. He was WITHIN HIS RIGHTS PROVIDED TO HIM CONSTITUTIONALLY AT BIRTH to take photos there.

When Bush was president and I was still in high school, I didn't stand for the pledge of allegiance (Heck, I may not even stand for it today because I fundamentally disagree with it). Numerous times, in numerous classes I was sent to the principals office by various right wing school teachers who thought I was committing heresy. The thing is, I HAVE the right to not stand up for the pledge of allegiance, and I could have had any of the teachers reprimanded or fired for the way they treated me. I was never disrespectful or disruptive. I just chose to remain seated quietly at my desk while the pledge took place. I never once folded to the administration, or to pressure from "superiors" because I had done nothing wrong.

What you fail to realize is that this guy is in the same boat as I was.

It's interesting that you talk about having rights, but you didn't stand up for the pledge for the very country that gave you those rights. Almost a double standard.

If the police see something they deem suspicious, like a GWAC late at night, they can ask questions. I've been asked questions in my small town for just working on my car in my own yard late at night. No big deal. Why push the issue? Save your fight for another day. On top of a bridge late at night is not the time. If you feel you've been wronged, arguing with the cops will not get you anywhere. Take the proper steps and file a complaint, or a lawsuit if you wish.

 

[imagemaker46]

the whole time he attempted to make it harder for the cops. What was so wrong with giving his Id to ensure he is not a known criminal

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-

This is what you don't understand. If people don't uphold their own rights, you're basically being oppressed by the police force. They had absolutely no right to question him, or ask for his ID. He was WITHIN HIS RIGHTS PROVIDED TO HIM CONSTITUTIONALLY AT BIRTH to take photos there.

When Bush was president and I was still in high school, I didn't stand for the pledge of allegiance (Heck, I may not even stand for it today because I fundamentally disagree with it). Numerous times, in numerous classes I was sent to the principals office by various right wing school teachers who thought I was committing heresy. The thing is, I HAVE the right to not stand up for the pledge of allegiance, and I could have had any of the teachers reprimanded or fired for the way they treated me. I was never disrespectful or disruptive. I just chose to remain seated quietly at my desk while the pledge took place. I never once folded to the administration, or to pressure from "superiors" because I had done nothing wrong.

What you fail to realize is that this guy is in the same boat as I was.

So fundamentally you have no respect for your own county, for your flag, the people of the United States, liberty or justice. So what part don't you agree with?