If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
activity on his cellphone: http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is the claim that no supervisor was on duty. Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness" evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the police have different stories (DUH!). I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a picture of police activity in plain sight. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
Bill Funk wrote:
Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police activity on his cellphone: http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is the claim that no supervisor was on duty. Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness" evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the police have different stories (DUH!). I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a picture of police activity in plain sight. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" Bill, Big Brother is watching... ;-) Orwell might have been right after all. Take care, Marcel |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
Bill Funk wrote:
Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police activity on his cellphone: http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is the claim that no supervisor was on duty. Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law) This assumes that the reporter could actually identify the law--the Pennsylvania statutes are voluminous and finding things in them quickly requires special expertise. Further, it might be a city or local ordinance, so there's actually a good deal of research involved to do this, more than can reasonably be accomplished before deadline for any but possibly the largest news organizations. ; the "witness" evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the police have different stories (DUH!). I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a picture of police activity in plain sight. I suspect that the officer exceeded his authority. I also expect that since this has gotten national publicity something will be done about it. As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it stand is another story. -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
It's scare tactics, and intimidation. Too many cops have been caught in
compromising, and embarrassing moments. Tom "Bill Funk" wrote in message ... Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police activity on his cellphone: http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is the claim that no supervisor was on duty. Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness" evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the police have different stories (DUH!). I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a picture of police activity in plain sight. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:59:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it stand is another story. It's far more complicated than that. Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider what his vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as passing the bill is concerned. I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out, the excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
Today, Celcius made these interesting comments ...
Bill Funk wrote: Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police activity on his cellphone: http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is the claim that no supervisor was on duty. Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness" evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the police have different stories (DUH!). I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a picture of police activity in plain sight. Big Brother is watching... ;-) Orwell might have been right after all. Take care, "Big Brother" has been watching since FISA was updated twice since 9/11, the 1947 NSA was updated at least twice since, all Federal intelligence and law enforcement activities were consolidated under Homeland Security, along with incorrectly bundling FEMA in, and finally, the Bill of Rights was abrogated, severely abridged, and the 4th Amendment basically destroyed by the Patriot Act, which turns out to be an acronym. Whether any of us agree with or disagree with the Bush Administration's stance on all of this, including the highly controversial "wire tapping" of American phone calls and the accusation that the NY Times violated the NSA by leaking the story about the USA monitoring foreign money transfers, it is quite clear that today's post-9/11 world is very different than it was prior to about 9:00AM on September 11, 2001. Over in alt.binaries.pictures.rail there was a very long, very contentious thread about whether a private company can or cannot confiscate picture you take of their rail yard from a public ridge, and the discussion drifted into whether photography on private property is or is not a protected "right". Well, not being a Constitutional law attorney, I am an engineer, I do not know the answer to these knotty questions of our time. But, I do know this: If you are accosted for doing something with a camera of /any/ sort, cell phone, P & S, or sophisticated DSLR where a legitimate law enforcment officer takes issue or even if a private security guard take issue, your best course of action is to immediately park your ego, stand down, get polite and very contrite, and try to calm down the person accosting you. Absent so really sincere humility, some amount of hassle will definitely come your way, all the way to a police arrest for anything as small as disturbing the peace, misdemeanor photography of a police investigation, to felony obstruction of justice or a believed attempt to contribute to the crime being investigated, planning of a future crime, or the worst of all, the planning or execution of a real or perceived terrorist attack. The latter is so ill-defined that it is difficult right now to even talk about what does or does not constitute an "attack" by a common citizen taking a picture with their cell phone camera or saying something seemingly innocuos like "gee, here's a good example of police brutality in progress!". And, I wouldn't advise ya to yell "Big Brother!" if you are in a similar situation. So, as to whether it is or is not against the law to take pictures of anything, including a police action, only a qualified attorney can answer that, but likely, it will become a matter for state or federal courts to decide and may wind its way through the appellate court system all the way to the Supreme Court, which really makes me wonder where the Hell the ACLU has been during all of this over the last 4-5 years ... -- HP, aka Jerry Member, Chrysler Employee Motorsport Association (CEMA) http://www.cemaclub.org/default.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
Today, Bill Funk made these interesting comments ...
As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it stand is another story. It's far more complicated than that. Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider what his vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as passing the bill is concerned. I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out, the excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd. Yeas and Nays in two Houses of Congress signify passage or defeat of a /bill/, not a law. It doesn't become a law until the executive signs it, whether a state governor or the president. But, you are entirely correct in that no one really knows what the new law does or does not say, exactly how it is applied and enforced, and whether it is constitutional or not until at least one case comes before a state or federal court. And, under the American justice system, a lower court ruling or even jury trial decision does not set a precedent. That takes a decision at least at the appellate court level or a state or Federal Supreme Court. And, laws can be challenged in the general case, individually, through certified classes, as in class-action suits, or when one side or the other in some controversy decide to go to court, of which being arrested is only one way. As to whether a police officer or someone higher in the police command structure did or did not exceed their authority would depend highly - and specifically - on what statute(s) were cited by the arresting office, the evidence they used, the degree of probably cause, and any potential conflicts between city, country, state, and Federal law, not to mention the various aspects of state and Federal constitutional law and the implementable portions of things like the Patriot Act. Now, back to the legislators. In a republic, which is what the United States is, it is /not/ a democracy, a legislator is not at all bound by his/her constutents to vote the way the people want or even the way the candidate said they would whilst running for office. Voters then have only two recourses: attempt to remove the legislator under appropriate law or congressional rules, or vote their ass out of office next election. In some cases, a recall election may be applicable, which is how Gov. Gray lost his job in Kalyfornia and Arnold Schwazenneger was elected a couple years ago. -- HP, aka Jerry Member, Chrysler Employee Motorsport Association (CEMA) http://www.cemaclub.org/default.html |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
Tom Williams wrote:
It's scare tactics, and intimidation. Too many cops have been caught in compromising, and embarrassing moments. Yeah, but it could also be more of the Homeland Security nonsense we've seen in recent years. The law in question (if it exists) might be designed to keep anti-terrorism activity secret. While that is laudable, I want my rights back. ---- Paul J. Gans |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message ... Tom Williams wrote: It's scare tactics, and intimidation. Too many cops have been caught in compromising, and embarrassing moments. Yeah, but it could also be more of the Homeland Security nonsense we've seen in recent years. The law in question (if it exists) might be designed to keep anti-terrorism activity secret. While that is laudable, I want my rights back. ---- Paul J. Gans I've only read about situations where people claim it's illegal to take pictures of this, or that. I haven't seen any laws that clearly spell that out, here in the U.S. As far as I know, taking pictures in public places is not against the law. Especially while standing on ones own property! Does any one have any links to such laws? Tom |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity
Bill Funk wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:59:48 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it stand is another story. It's far more complicated than that. Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider what his vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as passing the bill is concerned. How does that make it "more complicated" than a majority vote? I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out, the excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd. -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
easily blend digital photo onto another image | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 8th 06 10:06 AM |
how to blend digital photo onto another image? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 8th 06 10:05 AM |
Photographing children | Owamanga | Digital Photography | 2538 | May 3rd 05 10:14 AM |
Photographing children | Owamanga | Digital SLR Cameras | 1789 | May 3rd 05 10:14 AM |
Anyone ever arrested for taking a photo in the U.S.? | JohnCM | Digital Photography | 24 | June 28th 04 08:22 PM |