I think thats kinda the point. He knows the law.
A standard issue citizen would have been browbeaten into complying … maybe cops in Texas sell lots of “used” cameras on ebay?
1 Like
Forget an app that uploads to a server. I’d like to see an app that gives you the bullet points for responding to a police officer when they question you. It should include details on each state’s specific nuances. For example, I’d like to see a comprehensive list of things you ARE and are NOT allowed to do, along with what the officer IS and is NOT allowed to do/ask. For example “An officer cannot seize your equipment unless…” and "If you ask “Am I free to go’ and they say yes, walk away”, etc.
Oh, and there should be something that tests you by acting like a d-bag officer and you can practice navigating your way out of the situation. More of us need to be equipped to challenge authority. It’s been abused for far too long.
It isn’t over yet.
There’s still plenty of time for the Deputy and his buddies to plan a bit of meth in the photographer’s car, send him to prison for resisting arrest or similar “contempt of cop” charges, or just plain execute him.
In a world where 250000 poor people in Brazil are evicted for the World Cup to occur, maybe it IS too much to expect.
3 Likes
Photographer’s rights pdf: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
The way to practice is simply to assert your rights when you come into contact with the police for traffic stops or other incidental contact.
“Officer I refuse all searches”
“Officer, I have been advised not to answer any questions without a lawyer”
“Officer, I respectfully refuse to answer that question”
“What will you do if I refuse to answer that question?”
“Officer am I free to leave?”
“What crime do you suspect me of having broken?”
5 Likes
he is lucky he wasn’t maced!
mace is an officer’s first line of choice while interrogating questionably inquisitive citizens.
so a tiny panhandle town is not enough for you?
if it can happen in “tiny town, usa”, then just imagine what a big city is like,
like let’s say rampart division, los angeles
2 Likes
No, not really. He’s a policeman, not a lawyer or judge.
By calling the right to interact peaceably with cops a privilege, it makes it seem like it’s something extra that whites have rather than a right that everyone should have. If a black or Arabic-looking man did what this guy did, the cops would have probably beaten him like a rented mule. I know you’re not arguing to take away the white guy’s rights, but rather to have the cops respect the rights of non-whites, but calling the white guy’s rights a privilege makes it easier to take those rights away.
It reminds me of what happens when some people hear that other people get 4-6 weeks of paid vacation days. A lot of people react to that with “Why should they get that? I only get 2 weeks of vacation and that’s enough for me. They’re privileged.” instead of saying “They get 4-6 weeks? I should get that too!”
3 Likes
The pigs love 9/11 more than Christmas. 9/11 resulted in the biggest violation of American citizens rights in history.
I get your point (and I see the analogy to yes, frustrating! attitudes about vacation allowances) but as you basically go on to say, the much higher expectation of interacting peaceably with cops IS something extra that whites in most places have. Others do indeed have that “right,” but their realistic expectation that they’ll actually get it is much lower.
“White privilege” has become pretty common parlance for describing this type of white advantage. How instead do you suggest we highlight the disparity? Especially in a way that can wake white people up more to the fact that the racist disadvantages faced by others also constitute advantages, and thus unjust privileges, for themselves?
2 Likes
Some things bother me about this video. The answer to officer’s first question is a lie. This serves to escalate the situation and I think this starts things out poorly. It is this person’s goal to record police officers. Why not just say that? It would be much better to just be honest and say that you are recording the actions of public officials because that is what you like to do. From there you can explain your motivations and who you are.
And then there the issue of your identity. I agree that it is wrong for a police officer to demand the ID of random people that are just walking/driving/biking around for no reason. But if your goal is to record police officers, even if you didn’t plan to do that when you left the house, you are not a random person just walking around.
Lying to the officer about what you are doing and refusing to provide ID only escalates this interaction and reduces your credibility.
I just wish that this person would have been honest and cooperative. This would have allowed him to take a real stand on the position of anyone being able to record the police, or any public official, performing their jobs.
@GrahamJohntson
Interesting take. The officer said he was allowed to lie to the citizen. A point of pride for the cop it seems. Perhaps had the cop been honest the interaction would have gone smoothly. But, I guess it’s easier to blame the citizen for his lack of honesty and cooperation than it is to expect the cop to extend the same courtesy. After all, cops have a much more difficult job than everyone else, anywhere, ever.
4 Likes
Hey now, this is America! So the photog will probably get three or four anal cavity exams prior to the execution.
I get your point but I disagree. Was the arrest being captured on video a secret sting operation? No. Was the videographer being polite and clear? To my thinking, he was. Did he try to run away or verbally threaten or become agitated? No. And who escalated the tension in this situation? The second police officer. Take note of how easily the third police officer handled the situation–with honesty, levity, and humility, all all without trying to snatch away someone’s (non-weapon) property or playing the “I’m the authority so you keep quiet while I speak or else” game.
As the officers noted when asked, the videographer was not suspected of any wrongdoing and he had provided all the information he was legally required to provide.
This whole thing strikes me as another moment of police authority being rightly challenged, which tends to be something that really pisses cops off and, frankly, puts the challenger into an exceptionally dangerous position.
3 Likes
He’s in law enforcement nonetheless…he should know the law better than the average citizen. Certainly he should know the law back to front where it specifically concerns the responsibilities, guidelines and limits to his own daily activities and powers
So glad someone came on and said it first.
Sorry guys, but I’m with the minority on this one. While I can’t support the actions of the deputy who tried to snatch the camera (he was completely in the wrong on his behavior), I also can’t support the actions of the guy who made the video. He instigated this. I’ll also use quotes when I say ‘photog’ because it’s this kind of guy who makes it harder for photographers and videographers to do their jobs or casually film - and for people who are honestly trying to film the police to do so.
Here’s why: Go view the video at 10:36. The deputy explains to the ‘photog’…“You’re photographing the county buildings, which I saw. Jail, which I saw. Other buildings downtown, which I saw. More than one traffic stop, which I saw. That concerns me.” (The ‘photog’ includes subtext which says: “He did not see all of that, others may have, he did not. Besides it is all legal.” He’s trying to convince us that the officer is lying about having seen him, but doesn’t deny having done it.)
Now, we’ve been told at the start of the video, that the video was edited for, “length purposes and to keep my personal information off the video.” However, he never provided anything other than his name and DOB to the police, and we see that. So, just what did he did edit?
That traffic stop that only seemed to take a minute probably took 15 or 20 minutes, and that whole time he was standing there, in the dark, across the street from the police. Aiming at them. They were trying to do their jobs, apparently without incident, and he was a being a constant distraction.
Want to know why they finally approached him? Because when it got dark, he wasn’t just a distraction anymore - he was a possible threat. He’d been following them all day! He’d been at multiple stops. He has the legal right to do that, but rights come with responsibilities. You don’t get to have a right and then act a like a fool. His behavior was suspicious, and caused the police to treat him as though he was suspicious. A professional would have notified a superior officer of his intent to video on that day.
Responsibility is the price of freedom. - Elbert Hubbard
1 Like
? Why, it’s photography in a public place. I don’t tell anyone in Times Square I’m shooting anything and I don’t expect them to tell me.
What, in your opinion, is “suspicious” about using a camera? Is a camera mounted on a pole by the police suspicious? How about by a private company like a drug store? What camera use is suspicious and which is not?
1 Like
Ask Kelly Thomas that question… no wait. You can’t.
2 Fullerton Pigs beat him to death for no reason and faced no more severe consequences than being fired.
It is absolutely legal to film police from a safe distance.
Legal doesn’t always equal smart. The guy did taunt them.
He didn’t just “use a camera” one time. When you plan to repeatedly appear at stops you really should do the responsible thing and let people know that you’re only going to be there with a camera. It’s called being polite, and it goes a long way.
Think about it from a cop’s perspective. As it gets darker, it gets harder to see what it is that someone is aiming at you from across a street. You have have to spend more time distracted from what you’re there to do (your actual job) and more time making sure that you’re safe doing your job. It’s hardly surprising that the officer was frustrated - as I already said that doesn’t excuse his behavior. More than anything, those cops were probably just trying to make the person that was wasting their time, making them nervous, and distracting them go away. (Most forces are already running light, they don’t have extra deputies to send over to make sure you don’t have a gun in the dark.)
We know from the video that he’d seen several stops without incident, and I’m pretty sure he would have kept following them until someone broke. He didn’t run across a problem police stop. He spent his day tracking the police hoping to see one.
Not everyone videoing police is doing so responsibly.
I laud those who do.
