PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   Digital Point & Shoot Cameras (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=105277)

C J Campbell[_2_] April 2nd 09 03:30 PM

Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right
 
On 2009-04-01 08:04:06 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:32:35 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:


My thoughts as well. You do not enforce the law by destroying evidence.
Further, any lawyer representing the photographer is going to point out
that the cop was obviously attempting to destroy evidence that he was
committing a crime.

If his actions were not police brutality, then he should have welcomed
the photos, not destroyed them.


You say "his actions". I understand that you don't have the complete
story (because I don't have it to relate), but what indication do you
have that he was involved in the arrest action at all?

After all, you are the person who pointed out that he would *not* be
part of the arrest team. He, according you, would be restricted to
being an observer of the arrest.


No, actually, I am not that person.


His reaction was allegedly based on not wanting the undercover drug
task force team's photographs available for distribution in the drug
community. Photographs would capture the faces of the observers as
well as the officers directly involved in the arrest actions.


A photograph someone 'observing' the arrest would be no different than
any other bystander. You are really grasping at straws here.


Your statement is akin to "If you were not beating your wife, you've
done nothing wrong". It plants the idea that the person is considered
one who would be violent.


? I don't get this at all. You are raving here.


The kangaroo is the elephant in the room.


And now you have crossed over into madness.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor


Tony Cooper April 2nd 09 05:06 PM

Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right
 
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:30:02 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-04-01 08:04:06 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:32:35 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:


My thoughts as well. You do not enforce the law by destroying evidence.
Further, any lawyer representing the photographer is going to point out
that the cop was obviously attempting to destroy evidence that he was
committing a crime.

If his actions were not police brutality, then he should have welcomed
the photos, not destroyed them.


You say "his actions". I understand that you don't have the complete
story (because I don't have it to relate), but what indication do you
have that he was involved in the arrest action at all?

After all, you are the person who pointed out that he would *not* be
part of the arrest team. He, according you, would be restricted to
being an observer of the arrest.


No, actually, I am not that person.


I apologize for confusing ducks and eagles.

His reaction was allegedly based on not wanting the undercover drug
task force team's photographs available for distribution in the drug
community. Photographs would capture the faces of the observers as
well as the officers directly involved in the arrest actions.


A photograph someone 'observing' the arrest would be no different than
any other bystander. You are really grasping at straws here.


My comment had to do with the insinuation of police brutality on the
part of Robbie as the motivation for destroying the images. If he
was not directly involved in the arrest, there would be no reason for
him to object on these grounds. His objection was based on his
identity being recorded, not based on what he was doing at the time.

Your statement is akin to "If you were not beating your wife, you've
done nothing wrong". It plants the idea that the person is considered
one who would be violent.


? I don't get this at all. You are raving here.


Your statement - "If his actions were not police brutality...then he
should have welcomed the photo" - plants the idea that police
brutality on his part was a motivation. His motivation was from an
entirely different reason.

Like the "beating your wife" cliche, saying "No, I wasn't" doesn't
remove the impression created when "If you were not beating your wife"
was made.

The kangaroo is the elephant in the room.


And now you have crossed over into madness.


It's a reference to a kangaroo court where unrelated, unsubstantiated,
charges (police brutality on the part of Robbie) are introduced as a
part of a sham proceeding.

If you don't "get" what mean, just ask.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com