Yalls Thoughts On My First Neg. Police Encounter

[pendennis]

What I can't stand the most is some places don't even have any information whether or not photography is allowed. Then, when you ask an employee, they don't even know. So you go start shooting and then get yelled at. It's like, if they don't want people taking photos then CLEARLY put up signs stating that fact. Honestly, I believe they pick and choose and I don't believe that's right.

Amen to that!

The local Kroger stores have very nice floral selections, and I've often gone there to grab a few shots of some of the arrangements for my personal, not commercial use. Last time I tried this, the clerk behind the counter advised me that I could no longer do that. I asked why, and she referred me to the store manager. I've known him for about six years, but he confirmed that pictures weren't allowed anywhere in the store, that it was Kroger policy. I didn't dispute him, and he showed me his "rule" book. It's not posted anywhere, but nonetheless so.

 

[astroNikon]

Yep that is not true. Never believe everything you see on the internet was spoken by George Washington not Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said never believe everything you see on You Tube. Jefferson was a big You Tube fan. Don't believe me, go to You Tube and type in his name. Hundreds of videos will pop up.

The biggest problem though is that Thomas Jefferson used a private email server.

 

[Jamesaz]

Did you buy anything from anyone or just take photos? If you were also a shopper people would probably be more inclined to let you take some pictures of their booth. Remember, they are at the market to make a living.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[table1349]

If Gary knows of ANY judge that has told him this they are either a liar or they at the minimum should be reported and removed from the judiciary and disbarred. At the most, they should be charged with the concealment of perjured testimony and judicial misconduct and the officers charged with perjury.

A judge by his oath is to remain neutral and unbiased. If a judge has not done so they have violated their oath at the very least. The public is generally distrustful of lawyers, but they look to judges as keepers of the truth.
An expert observation by a judge is not grounds for disbarment. If a judge cannot regularly separate fact from fudging ... elaboration from fantasy, objectively interpret the law without regards to personal opinions ... I think that person should not be a judge.

Interestingly, my main thrust was to beware of going to court because it is the home field of the police. They are not intimidated by courts, have been expertly instructed what to say and how to behave in order to win a conviction. Often, what they say and how they behave is more about winning than justice. But you pivoted my remarks pointing the finger at judges as being the culprit. There is a huge difference between a society we legislate and desire/wish to be ... and the de facto realty. If we ALL we righteous, we wouldn't need most courts ... especially criminal courts. I do not see how a judge's personal and expert observations of police testimony in their courtrooms, would, by and of itself, prejudices their conduct and be a reason for disbarment.

[/QUOTE]
Perhaps then that either the judge(s) or Gary needs to choose their words more carefully. "My own personal and objective observations and with my observations being reinforced by judges ... police lie in court." This is not a statement of opinion rather one of purported fact. There is a big difference between the two. If it is fact it is criminal, if it is opinion then it's merits are of far less value.

The courts are not the home field of the police, rather they are the home field of the judges, the prosecutors and the defense attorneys. The only reason that police officers testimony tends to carry weight is the fact that police officers are required to live lives above that of the average citizen. There is no Giglio for judges or attorneys. Nor is there any Giglio rule for the defense and their witnesses.

Prosecutors and some courts have taken the extremely cautious approach to Giglio as it has not been completely defined by the courts. In this jurisdiction it is not uncommon for an officers testimony to not even be heard for some completely unrelated incident many years in his past, even in his childhood. When I was still working we had two officers that were on the "Giglio List" because they were caught shoplifting in their early teen. One was only 11 the other 13. Since theft is considered a crime of dishonesty the were not eve called by the prosecution and in some instances the cases were even dropped. This was not the ruling in Giglio, but that is where it has lead.

If a judge truly believes that an officer "fudges" the judge has more than enough power to raise that in open court or in chambers. I have been present twice when a judge in open court did just that. Once the judge found them-self in a judicial review hearing and was severely sanctioned for it was learned that the judge disliked the particular unit the officer worked in as well as having a dislike for the officer. That judge was voted out a few months later.

The second time, our department couldn't fire the officer fast enough nor could the District Attorneys office file charges fast enough once the matter came to light.

Judges make some of their "expert observations" having never observed what they are making their judgments on. One of the most respected judges currently on the bench here was a prosecutor before being appointed a judge. He happened to be a chief prosecutor which meant he was at the scene of many, many incidents and observed how things actually occurred. In fact he still owes me a cigar and a jar of Vicks Vaporub. The are the odor fighter of choice by officers, firefighters, and EMT's whenever they come across a really ripe one. Vicks in the nose and puff, not inhale, hard on the cigar to block all the smell sensors possible.

 

[table1349]

Sorry, but the maintaining of order does require and LEO to determine right and wrong at any given time in a situation

Think you're splitting hairs and missed the big picture of my point. The police had already been called to a disturbance which the OP created by taking pictures. Per the OP's words they "respectfully" asked him to stop. Then the situation escalated to a larger confrontation a second time requiring them to respond. By that time, like Gary A said they probably didn't care if he had the right to take pictures or not.

An important part of that picture however is the reasoning behind their being there in the first place. You can deal with it correctly the first time or you can deal with it later in civil court. The fact that one or more of the participants didn't like the outcome is irreverent. It's like the person that is instructed that they are under arrest and decides that the police are wrong and resists. The police may or may not have been right when the person was informed they were under arrest, but the moment the person resisted they were wrong, no matter whether the arrest was valid or not.

Personally from reading this situation this would have been a two strikes your out rather than a three strikes your out situation.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

A public space is normally defined as a place the public has access to, whither it is privately owned or not and can still be places that charge an entrance fee. It's pretty well defined in most places that restrict smoking in public places (though in the UK if it's a place that is privatley owned then you just need permission from the owner to photograph there. Permission is normally assumed, until you are told you don't have permission. But even then all they can do is eject you from the premises if you don't comply - laws may vary in other countries)

Private property rights in the U.S. vary a bit with those in Scotland and Great Britain.

Private property means just that. When you enter by invitation, you must comply with the rules of the property owner. Paid admission to an event is a limited invitation.

On public property, that is, any property owned publicly, either by a government unit, or by dedication to public use, you can generally take photos of anything in view. This is not absolute "black letter law". When you're on a public sidewalk, for instance, you can take a photo of private property, even if the owner doesn't agree (I've had this exact experience). If you attempt to photograph law enforcement, you can have problems, because the police have broad powers to interpret "interference with a police operation". Generally, if you're taking pictures of a working fire, as long as you remain out of the way of the firefighters, you're O.K.

In a shopping mall, for example, the owners may ban any photography except upon their express permission. I found this out the easy way, when a couple wanted a wedding candid at a beautiful fountain in a mall atrium. I got permission to take the photo, expressly approved by the mall manager, and limited to that location only.

If, for instance, a flea market is taking place at a municipal parking lot, you generally have permission, unless the parking lot is leased for the event. In that case, the lessee can set the privacy rules, but they have to be specific, and in writing. They also have to comply with municipal law.

And, no, I will not delete any photograph I've taken, either digital or analog.

PS - I also protect myself from assault.

It's not that different in the UK, there is no privacy law or any real right to photograph. The law is written that there is no, and can be no expectation of privacy in a public place. On top of that everybody has the right to pursue their legitimate business. You don't have the right to photograph, it's more along the lines of there's no law that restricts you from doing it.
There is no expectation of privacy in a "mall" as it is a public place but because it's a privately owned space the owners do have a right to ban photography and you can be kicked out for non-compliance.

 

[Parker219]

OP - From all the hours you have spent taking photos at the flea market, you must capture some really interesting images. I think you should post some in this thread.

 

[table1349]

I'm thinking that the OP may not return with photos. Right now they are probably feeling like Cauliflower McPugg after a fight.

 

[Gary A.]

If Gary knows of ANY judge that has told him this they are either a liar or they at the minimum should be reported and removed from the judiciary and disbarred. At the most, they should be charged with the concealment of perjured testimony and judicial misconduct and the officers charged with perjury.

A judge by his oath is to remain neutral and unbiased. If a judge has not done so they have violated their oath at the very least. The public is generally distrustful of lawyers, but they look to judges as keepers of the truth.
An expert observation by a judge is not grounds for disbarment. If a judge cannot regularly separate fact from fudging ... elaboration from fantasy, objectively interpret the law without regards to personal opinions ... I think that person should not be a judge.

Interestingly, my main thrust was to beware of going to court because it is the home field of the police. They are not intimidated by courts, have been expertly instructed what to say and how to behave in order to win a conviction. Often, what they say and how they behave is more about winning than justice. But you pivoted my remarks pointing the finger at judges as being the culprit. There is a huge difference between a society we legislate and desire/wish to be ... and the de facto realty. If we ALL we righteous, we wouldn't need most courts ... especially criminal courts. I do not see how a judge's personal and expert observations of police testimony in their courtrooms, would, by and of itself, prejudices their conduct and be a reason for disbarment.

Perhaps then that either the judge(s) or Gary needs to choose their words more carefully. "My own personal and objective observations and with my observations being reinforced by judges ... police lie in court." This is not a statement of opinion rather one of purported fact. There is a big difference between the two. If it is fact it is criminal, if it is opinion then it's merits are of far less value.

The courts are not the home field of the police, rather they are the home field of the judges, the prosecutors and the defense attorneys. The only reason that police officers testimony tends to carry weight is the fact that police officers are required to live lives above that of the average citizen. There is no Giglio for judges or attorneys. Nor is there any Giglio rule for the defense and their witnesses.

Prosecutors and some courts have taken the extremely cautious approach to Giglio as it has not been completely defined by the courts. In this jurisdiction it is not uncommon for an officers testimony to not even be heard for some completely unrelated incident many years in his past, even in his childhood. When I was still working we had two officers that were on the "Giglio List" because they were caught shoplifting in their early teen. One was only 11 the other 13. Since theft is considered a crime of dishonesty the were not eve called by the prosecution and in some instances the cases were even dropped. This was not the ruling in Giglio, but that is where it has lead.

If a judge truly believes that an officer "fudges" the judge has more than enough power to raise that in open court or in chambers. I have been present twice when a judge in open court did just that. Once the judge found them-self in a judicial review hearing and was severely sanctioned for it was learned that the judge disliked the particular unit the officer worked in as well as having a dislike for the officer. That judge was voted out a few months later.

The second time, our department couldn't fire the officer fast enough nor could the District Attorneys office file charges fast enough once the matter came to light.

Judges make some of their "expert observations" having never observed what they are making their judgments on. One of the most respected judges currently on the bench here was a prosecutor before being appointed a judge. He happened to be a chief prosecutor which meant he was at the scene of many, many incidents and observed how things actually occurred. In fact he still owes me a cigar and a jar of Vicks Vaporub. The are the odor fighter of choice by officers, firefighters, and EMT's whenever they come across a really ripe one. Vicks in the nose and puff, not inhale, hard on the cigar to block all the smell sensors possible.[/QUOTE]
Yes, police lie is a statement of fact that I personally witnessed in court. My reply to the judge was "Your honor, the police office is a Goddamn liar." I won the case against the Anaheim Police. Later, I asked a judge friend about police not being truthful in court and he "reinforced" that often they do.

As such, I contend that this a statement of fact that I can personally attest to. There have been other times with similar responses from judges regarding police "fudging", some responses reinforcing my statement sometimes came out of the blue and other times a response to a direct question. The "fudge" remark actually came out of the blue.

I used to run political campaigns, including many judicial races. During the course of a campaign I would spent a lot of time in courts and judge's chambers.

 

[nerwin]

I'm thinking that the OP may not return with photos. Right now they are probably feeling like Cauliflower McPugg after fight.

Or he got arrested.

 

[rescue341]

Nah im still here and a free man. My photos are on my drive at the house im working a 24 right now ill post some to this thread when i get off shift tommrow.

To clarfy a few things. The flea market is owned and runed by the county. I was confussed as to why so many people were saying flea markets are private untill i did some googleing and found most are privatly owned. I guess where the local one is the only I've ever been to I just figured all flea markets were like ours. Also to clarfy the flea market is only open 10-2pm. When i say end of the day in the orginal post im talking about around 1:30pm. Also it's not so much that the flea market is super important to me. I go every few weeks simply becuase its the only public gathering spot around here. So its more of a I want to take some pictures of people doing people things might aswell go to the market. pop some headphones in, walk around and see what i can get.

I'm not sure exactly how to qoute post in this reply but. To the few who suguested I become kind of a part of the market by buying somethings and interacting I really like that ideal. I have Asperger so to me its always been more natural to stay at a distance and avoid interacting. Next time i got ill try to get in to the thick of it and interact with the people.

To the one who said find another hobby, while I apercate your respones. you can go suck a lemon

to the few who were saying just becuase you can doesnt mean you should. I always hated that saying. If what your doing is your right and you want to do it. You should 100% do it. If other people get offened by your right its to bad for them. We dont hsve rights to protect what people love we have rights to protect what pisses them off

Thanks for all the responses guys I apericate them all. Does anyone have any confrontation storys of there own to share?

 

[tecboy]

I suggest you stop taking pictures at the flea market. You will have more problems and get even worst. If you want to take pictures at people, go volunteer at your local nonprofit organization. You will get permission to take pictures, but you have to be respectful for others.

 

[Parker219]

Nevermind

 

[rescue341]

No tecBoy suggestion is vaild I told the one poster that becuase he suggested I find another hobby so i returned his kind advice by suggesting he try sucking a lemon

 

[Gary A.]

The good thing about interacting ... you can do it at your pace. I suspect you'll never be comfortable in a crowd ... but at least it will be your call when and for how long. I hope you accept and challenge yourself.

You are right that our freedoms are measured by what we tolerate not by what we accept. But you seem to to working a tough crowd. Remember that often, intolerant/ignorant people are not easily persuaded to change their ways or accept new ideas. It will be an upward battle. I appreciate your outlook.

I don't know where you are located, but it doesn't sound like you are near me. If you were, I'd offer to shoot with you. It's as easy for two to get arrested as one.