"Public photography is not a crime" - PEN Article

[ShooterJ]

...What is anyone taking pictures of that they need the pictures so bad that they'll stand there and argue with an officer?? There's an appropriate course of action to follow if you feel an officer was overzealous and that you have a legitimate complaint.

What difference does it make why someone wants the images? If they're somewhere they're not restricted from being, why is it reasonable that they should leave and then have to debate the issue after the fact?

I agree that it isn't right .. and you don't have to walk away. But if you choose not to, you can be arrested.

It's like I said about the forum and it's moderators, the rules clearly state that members don't challenge a moderators decision even if they feel it's wrong. They CAN take action and report it.. but arguing with the moderator isn't tolerated.

 

[tirediron]

Touche! Fair comment, to a point. The difference is, TPF is a privately owned enterprise, and can set basically any rules it likes (within certain limits of course) whereas in the public vs. public servant (and it matters not a whit whether they're police, road-workers, or toll-booth attendants) situation, both are governed several layers of laws, and both have certain rights and neither party can make things up as they go along.

 

[ShooterJ]

We don't make it up as we go along. The rules which govern the police are clearly stated. Any attorney, judge, ACLU rep or police officer in the US could tell you the same thing.

Officers make decisions on the fly every day.. if people are encouraged to argue with those decisions, we're going to have a lot more problems than just upset photographers.

I wouldn't treat someone unfairly like that. I'm a police officer but I'm also a level headed and nice guy.. but there are other officers who are idiots, or just flat out on a power trip ..

That doesn't change the fact that they're a police officer and the law requires citizens to follow their instructions.

I've seen a lot of departments sued and a lot officers lose their jobs because someone handled it the right way. What I haven't seen, is anyone tell a police officer off and that's that.

EDIT: I DO understand where you're coming from and it would make me angry too. It's not right for any officer to treat someone that way when acting within their rights. My goal here is to help honest photographers effectively handle misconduct.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Since the article posted seems to be an opinion piece, I looked up a news article about what originally happened. Apparently media need prior permission to take photos in Union Station in Toronto (I'm not sure if the photographer had permission or not, I would think the paper or the reporter would have gotten it taken care of ahead of time).

But apparently he saw a couple leaving the scene, the woman was crying and they told the reporter they didn't want to talk to him - so he ran ahead of them and took their picture, and the guy smacked him... that's how/why the police got involved. Not that the guy should have smacked him, and he may have been allowed to take photos there, but the article said the station was crowded that time of day, maybe it would have been a better decision to go take someone else's picture... Sounds like it was a mess of a situation.

I've had co-workers a couple of times that no sooner had left a home visit than the police went in for a drug bust in the same apt. building - they'd been watching the place the whole time. You never know what might be going on that you aren't even aware of. Good example about someone taking photos in front of a school, the person might be on public property on a sidewalk, but you don't know if it's someone's grandpa taking pictures the first day of school, or the neighborhood creep using the camera as a premise to hang out and try to abduct a child (or any of dozens of possible scenarios). You just don't always know the whole story or why you might be getting asked to leave an area.

Certainly there have been situations where a security guard or police officer may not have handled something properly, and I can see why that would make someone mad if they feel like they have a right to be someplace; with 'everybody' having a camera there seem to have been plenty of overreactions. It doesn't seem like arguing with an officer would end well or that the photographer would accomplish what they set out to do. I just think the end result would be better going thru proper channels.

 

[ShooterJ]

I'm still learning photography .. I have a long way to go and I find a lot of value in this forum and the experience that can be drawn on here.

I don't have a lot of advice to give to other photographers about the art, but I always like to contribute something useful if I can.

What I do have experience with is nearly a decade in law enforcement .. so by all means, if anyone has a problem or question concerning the police, please feel free to message me about it.

If you're in the right I'd be happy to give you some resources you could use. I don't condone misconduct by officers.. I believe in my promise to serve the public and I have no issues with helping someone stand up for their rights.

One day I'll be more useful in photography but for now I'll contribute this to the photography community. Lol

 

[tirediron]

We don't make it up as we go along. The rules which govern the police are clearly stated. Any attorney, judge, ACLU rep or police officer in the US could tell you the same thing.

That's the way it should work. Unfortunately it doesn't always.

That doesn't change the fact that they're a police officer and the law requires citizens to follow their instructions.

Now this may be a difference between US and Canadian law, but in Canada, the requirement is to obey the lawful and reasonable direction of a peace officer. In other words (exaggerated example used for illustration) if I'm walking along the street and Constable Bloggins instruct me to help change a flat tire on his police car, while there's nothing actually illegal about that, it is unreasonable and I'm under no obligation to assist. Arresting me for failure to comply would not go well for the constable. On the other hand, if he tells me that I can't proceed past intersection 'X' because there's a fire down the street, that's both lawful and reasonable, and failure to comply would not go well for the me.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting that photographers (or anyone else) should be exempt from the law, in fact, the 'anything for the shot' type of PJ is probably the lowest form of pond-scum I can think of. What does bother me greatly is the attitude of many groups of public servants who have a "I've got a badge/license/SuperSpy Secret Decoder Ring so therefore I am right!" attitude.

 

[ShooterJ]

I agree... and it's the same in the US. Citizens are required to follow instructions within reason. I wouldn't be permitted to arrest someone for not helping me change a tire. Lol

And you're correct, there are an unfortunate number who feel their job gives them more power than it really does and that's a problem.

There are those of us who try to combat that within our departments.

Oh, and you CAN make a complaint directly to internal affairs .. at least in the US. Those people LOVE to eat police officers for breakfast.

 

[tirediron]

... Those people LOVE to eat police officers for breakfast.

Mmmmm... Sugar-frosted Cop-O's!

 

[ShooterJ]

... Those people LOVE to eat police officers for breakfast.

Mmmmm... Sugar-frosted Cop-O's!

I'm gonna have to remember that one. Lol

 

[rexbobcat]

Idk. Many of the police here are kind f incompetent.

I think part of it comes from the mentality that "well hell, I barely passed high school so I guess I'll just go into the police force."

This is something I have actually heard people say. And these aren't people who can't succeed elsewhere because of circumstance. These are people who don't succeed by choice of laziness.

I could trust the police force more if most of the people in it are there because they want to do something for the good of the public, instead of being there because they heard you don't need a college degree.

Not saying that it's like this everywhere, but it seems to be prevalent in the area.

 

[tirediron]

Idk. Many of the police here are kind f incompetent.

I think part of it comes from the mentality that "well hell, I barely passed high school so I guess I'll just go into the police force."

This is something I have actually heard people say. And these aren't people who can't succeed elsewhere because of circumstance. These are people who don't succeed by choice of laziness.

I don't think that's too common anymore; I'm sure it still occurs, but not very often. Much like judges giving people a choice between jail and joining the army. These days, most law-enforcement, military and similar organizations expect at least a basic university degree.

 

[ShooterJ]

Not too much of that in my department .. they do require a degree and the interview/entrance process is geared towards determining intelligence and problem solving skills, particularly under stress.

Of course .. I don't work for Sheriff Andy either ... we're metro, with three divisions blanketing a population of over half a million. Not the kind of job people work due to laziness.. lol

 

[Steve5D]

If you're standing on a highway snapping pictures, I might check it out.. if you're photographing near odd places, I might check it out... but I always allow a photographer the chance to tell me what he/she is doing ... and I've never taken any kind of action against one. I ask my questions, politely thank them and tell them to have a nice day.

Unfortunately, way too many people see this as some form of harrassment. These would be the same people who whine because you weren't around to keep them from being mugged, too...

 

[ShooterJ]

Yeah.. damned if we do, damned if we don't. People complain when we show up and when we aren't around. Guess you just kind of get used to it after a while... this job doesn't make you popular. Lol