[trip286]

I was speaking in reference of the post you quoted.

[Charyoutree]

Originally Posted by partdeux

Trip,

There was no sarcasm in my post. I serious about this, the 1st amendment protects photographers just like the 2nd amendment protect gun owners. We are quickly losing all of our rights to ever zealous and illegal enforcement.

I'm also an amatuer photographer that makes some spare change selling photos. I actually had an over zealous park security guard threaten me with arrest because I was taking pictures of a flowing stream under an effin foot bridge. I challenged him to call the police and have them come out and arrest me.

Been there; done that. Very embarrassed ranger. I'm also a photography enthusiast so I've been seeing it more and more everywhere.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchers?) --"Satires", Juvenal (Roman poet)

[c3shooter]

Just to stick an oar in here for a moment, and stir a bit-

Filming, video taping, audio taping, or having someone make an oil painting- IN A PUBLIC PLACE- where there is no expectation of privacy- should be an accepted practice.

Working a bad accident, and removing the body from the vehicle? Show a bit of courtesy for the family, huh? And to the lady the EMTs are working on, having removed much of her clothing. And do not get underfoot.

In an area with a bona fide security concern? Then post in big letters that photography not permitted in that area. I enter areas for work that fall under that category- nuclear facilities, shipyards, military aircraft, explosives storage, and some I will not name.

But in a public street, standing in your front yard, in the park- the light my camera captures does not belong to anyone. If you are threatened by someone recording what you are doing- then in most cases, you need to examine what you were doing.

Are there exceptions? Sure. On the grounds of a hospital? Patients have an expectation of privacy. Museum? They own the work of art you want to copy- and owning that gives them the right to decide who they want to let make a copy of it. Musical performance? Yeah, the performers and owners of the work decide if you can make a copy, or should pay them for their property. I'm trying to take a whizz here (Your camera is about to get wet)

The dash cam for LEOs has been a great tool settling just what DID happen. It should not be limited by who the camera belongs to.

[orangello]

Originally Posted by c3shooter

... and some I will not name.

It should not be limited by who the camera belongs to.

1. Chicken Ranch?


2. In our current reality, SHOULD is an important word there.

[Charyoutree]

As a photographer I have seen the complete lack of understanding and knowledge of the law on display be LEOs. They all seemed dumbfounded that I didn't just knuckle under and let them confiscate my camera...only once did the guy do as I suggested and call his chief and the city attorney. Actually, I was helping him to avoid a unlawful arrest suit, but he didn't realize it at the time and showed no appreciation for my help as he walked away.

And c3, I agree 100% with all the examples you used...that's called showing respect and class.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchers?) --"Satires", Juvenal (Roman poet)

[Cory2]

There is no reason to trust a police officer anymore than you would trust a methed out crack fiend. I'm sure some LEO's will get their panties in a wad about that comment too.

Just becuase the government says the person has the power to boss you around and will take one cops word over 3 civilians word does not mean they are trustworthy. Police have a loooong history in America of being crooked, this isn't some new phenomena. Beatings, bribes, planting evidence, destruction of evidence, murder, rape, the list goes on. If you trust a cop you don't know, than you.... you should read more.

As for the comment about what would happen to the homeowner if he shot some illegal entrants into his home before they identified them self as being police. I'm sure that is what happens in many cases where these "officers" are shot and killed and then the home owner is shot and killed and dragged through the mud. You know how it goes, "we announced 3 times and then entered the building, the assailant fired shots at us so we shot him 63 times" and then it turns out the assailants gun was on safe and he never fired a shot... but no one cares about the story anymore by the time that comes out.



Moral of the story, don't trust cops anymore than you would trust any other government official, or any random person in general.



Edit: you also gotta love the times when they get the wrong house, kick in the door pin everyone down and shoot their pets. Then they are all like "suck it, we won't even appoligize publicly for our MASSIVE mistake"

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by c3shooter

Just to stick an oar in here for a moment, and stir a bit-

Filming, video taping, audio taping, or having someone make an oil painting- IN A PUBLIC PLACE- where there is no expectation of privacy- should be an accepted practice.

Working a bad accident, and removing the body from the vehicle? Show a bit of courtesy for the family, huh? And to the lady the EMTs are working on, having removed much of her clothing. And do not get underfoot.

In an area with a bona fide security concern? Then post in big letters that photography not permitted in that area. I enter areas for work that fall under that category- nuclear facilities, shipyards, military aircraft, explosives storage, and some I will not name.

But in a public street, standing in your front yard, in the park- the light my camera captures does not belong to anyone. If you are threatened by someone recording what you are doing- then in most cases, you need to examine what you were doing.

Are there exceptions? Sure. On the grounds of a hospital? Patients have an expectation of privacy. Museum? They own the work of art you want to copy- and owning that gives them the right to decide who they want to let make a copy of it. Musical performance? Yeah, the performers and owners of the work decide if you can make a copy, or should pay them for their property. I'm trying to take a whizz here (Your camera is about to get wet)

The dash cam for LEOs has been a great tool settling just what DID happen. It should not be limited by who the camera belongs to.

OK, granted. But what about a Rodney King scenario? A private citizen films the scene. Is the cop cam more legitimate than the other cameras?

[trip286]

Wasn't Rodney King attempting to evade police in excess of 100 mph through a residential area?

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by trip286

Wasn't Rodney King attempting to evade police in excess of 100 mph through a residential area?

Something like that. My point is that if a private citizen films the scene is that a crime? C3 points out some scenarios where privacy is an issue, but is it not the same with King? Do the police have any more expectation of privacy in a situation like that than a private citizen does? Can the police legally prevent you from filming or taking pictures of them? I don't think they legally can.

[partdeux]

Originally Posted by trip286

Wasn't Rodney King attempting to evade police in excess of 100 mph through a residential area?

and that has what to do with filming his arrest?