I just watch this. In the first ten seconds I could tell the photographer was looking for an argument. If he would have just answered the cops questions from the start, be honest and nice instead of vauge and cold...this would have been over in just a quick moment. He had the law on his side and he knew it ... so he thought he'd take advantage of this.
I guess I saw a different video. He did answer the Sheriffs questions. He was taking pictures and it is legal to do so. The Sheriff wanted to hassel him. There was no law the Sheriff cited that the guy broke. If he broke a law or misdemeanor, the Sheriff would have arrested him. He did not. I was thinking this was an English speaking scene from Russia or China. Sorry guys, I disagree. If they want to make a law or an ordinance that you cannot take pictures, do it. It will fail a constitution test, but get it on the books and then the Sheriff can do his interrogation. The Sheriff left and did not arrest him. The sheriff was wrong.
ps: did the photog come off negatively; well if you think so, you don''t know your constitution. The law DOES HAVE TO PROVE THE PERSON BROKE THE LAW. THE SHERIFF SAID THE LAW DIDN'T. Watch that video again. RIP Ben Franklin!!!!!!!!!
+2. Evasive, defensive, argumentative. Plus which the guidelines (at the link cited in the video) appear to require advance permission for photography. But none of those details got discussed because the photog apparently didn't know them or was just trying to be obnoxious. What a way to go through life.
Instead of being wholly cooperative by carefully explaining what he was doing there in a non-belligerent tone and answering the cop's questions as he asked them, the photographer started invoking the law and made himself a suspect.
Granted the cop was maybe a little paranoid but the 'tog certainly did not make it easy for the cop to do his already hard job. It also doesn't help when you repeatedly interrupt the cop.
I don't think that a permit or a fee is required for 'casual' photography like a tourist or photo student or hobbyiest only for 'commercial' photography like magazines or brides or ads etc.
If photography is prohibited I'd think that there would be signs saying that and I have never seen any (not to say there aren't any but if there are they ain't obvious).
And the guy was doing it to make a point about uninformed law officers making up stuff, he as boomertim 1 says " He had the law on his side and he knew it ... so he thought he'd take advantage of this." WTF taking advantage of NOT breaking the law
Most of the time police aren't interested in a two way discussion, and once he said that no photos are are allowed, he wasn't going to back down by being proven wrong by a citizen. He was going to put him on the Homeland Security watch list...
boomertim1 wrote:
I just watch this. In the first ten seconds I could tell the photographer was looking for an argument. If he would have just answered the cops questions from the start, be honest and nice instead of vauge and cold...this would have been over in just a quick moment. He had the law on his side and he knew it ... so he thought he'd take advantage of this.
That's my opinion.
Tim
+++1
the guy was just looking to cause trouble or start something up IMHO. no other reason to react that way.
While common courtesy suggests that civility should be employed in dealing with people in public it is sadly lacking in many cases in modern society. Both the law officer and the photographer demonstrated that in this video. The law by virtue of the fact that they are OUR representatives given greater power and ARMED to protect and uphold the peace bear a far greater responsibility to maintain civility and professionalism than does the citizen. While it is stupid and counter productive to be rude to an officer it is NOT illegal, nor is it illegal to photograph in public. People who choose to defend over the top (and illegal) behavior on the part of a law officer simply because a citizen has been rude or uncooperative are abrogating their fundamental rights granted under both common law and the Constitution.
At some point each of must decide if we are sheep, peasants, or free people. Again, free people need not be rude nor stupid but the right to express includes the right to picture and an officer with an over-inflated sense of his/her own importance does not increase national security.
This is a case of trying to judge how stupid is stupid.
Nobody is faultless here. The situation appears that it could have been brought to a end by the photographer simply saying that he had checked with the subway authorities who indicated it wasn't against the rules to take personal pictures while in the facility. If he was misinformed he was sorry. That would have put the officer on notice that contact with authorities had been made and he might be the one in error. Our photographer chose to confront which is not smart. Now we go to the officer who broke every rule in the book. He does not have any right under any law to detain and question any citizen who is not involved in or suspected to be involved in an illegal act. It is called probable cause and he needs to be given some hard lessons by his superiors about how he can legally do his job. He may have become angry at the attitude of the photographer but his response and threats were clearly outside the bounds of the law.
Again the whole thing is stupid. Photographer should behave himself and the officer should step back and realize that while a lot of government officials believe that 9-11 gave them the right to invent non-existent laws, it most certainly did not.
That Policeman sounded like a real paranoid Dude and very spiteful .It seems that the police and border agents can use bully tactics and get away with it under the guise of Homeland security.Land of the free or Home of the Paranoid?
I was stopped by the a railworker on the Sydney (Australia) metro for taking photos on the platform. He didn't questioned me at all, just told me, quite firmly, that it was a security issue and please do not take any more.
Although I was unhappy at not being able to record any more travel shots there, I was happy that the increased safety is attempts to keep the travellers (including me) one tiny bit safer.
I may well have had the 'right' to take more - So what - I have the right to live a bit longer too!
I support increased security (But not little Hitlers with a 'I have the authority' hat on!)
Grace, Kindness, Reasonableness... to name a few things mom and dad should have taught us, trump all laws and rights. My advice to all involved, be gracious, kind and reasonable first and chances are you won't have to ride the constitutional high horse. Incidentally, when you travel abroad, Grace, Kindness and Reasonableness will go with you, while the constitutional high horse will stay home.
