Documenting Illegal Activity...

Bob Michaels said:
When I gave Gabe an archival 8x10 print of this photo, he proudly showed it to everyone around. Then he neatly folded it into quarters and put it in his hip pocket.
Click to expand...

Yep. Been there, seen that & may the good lord bless them all.

Thank you, Bob.

William
 
radambe said:
What did you mean by "only"? I think I may have misspoke or been misunderstood as saying honesty alone will gain trust...it won't, but lying has never gotten me anywhere I could've avoided.
Click to expand...

I may not have been clear either. What I mean is that honestly alone will not keep you safe or eliminate risk. Good intuition informed by as much as you can learn about the community or culture are very important too. And being very observant and sensitive to the slightest nuances of mood, body language, etc.
 
Al Kaplan said:
http://excellentmag.blogspot.com/2009/07/if-you-grumble-you-will-stumble.html

Put on your sound and rejoice in glorifying illegal activities!
Click to expand...

Wicked Al. Much respect for checking out my site. Glad you enjoyed the tune. I couldn't stop listening when I first heard it.

My advice to photographing illegal activity is don't be scared. Big Brother has surveillance all over without our permission. We have the right to photograph anything we want. Sometimes you just have to take chances. If someones tries to prosecute you for it that is just sad.
 
emraphoto said:
Gumby said:
Didn't Larry Clark also do this? I don't know what equipment he shot but I seem to recall similar subject matter.
Click to expand...

he most certainly did. heroin users (and i believe close friends)
Click to expand...

Worse than that. Speed freaks - injectors of amphetamine - they make junkies look docile. He was in that lifestyle himself, and pulled himself out by putting it all into the 1971 book Tulsa. That is THE book, THE series of photographs that describes the underbelly of the drug life. It's set in Tulsa, OK in the 60s (through 1971.) It wasn't exactly Beverly Hills pot parties, or a Haight-Ashbury love-in.

I was browsing a used bookstore a month ago, and found an unopened copy of the long out of print book.

I was really surprised to find out that the movie Kids is what Clark went on to do in the 90s. That's not all that uplifting of a movie either.
 
I have photographed mounted police with ID illegally removed clubbing protesters, including a plain clothes university policeman, and police beating kids protesting at the Davis Cup Matches. The first were published in several publications on campus, the second in the local paper and Tennis Magazine.
I was called as a witness, but did not have to testify. One of my photographers was clubbed with his Nikon F being smacked with a billy club. I was friends with the AP photographer and made sure my press card was displayed.


While attending a conference in Columbus, one of the state's attorneys asked for a show of hands of attendees who had smoked, he quickly explained that it was not illegal (at least in Ohio) to have taken drugs, only to possess them.


Almost any kind of "street" photography may very well catch people not at the best of times, it is difficult to convey, and for the subject to judge, intent.

Sometimes I carry some small prints to show someone what I am trying to do, sometimes I remember to bring back some prints to give people a year or more later, always appreciated.

My friend Florencio photographs people very closely and personally in Mexico, he has really terrific stuff. We have shot on several day trips, many of the shots I have taken in Mexico have been obtained because he knew where to go. I try to use equipment I feel is less obtrusive looking, but he tells me generally he finds ordinary Mexican people view someone with serious looking equipment as an artist, and react with tolerance. Perhaps the opposite I would expect, but it is his culture.

Good to know the culture.
 
We photographers have a responsibility to be careful what we photograph and what we publish. A photograph does not have to be admissible as evidence in a court of law to be damaging to the subject. Think of the photo of Michael Phelps smoking a bong.

At the same time, do we perhaps have a responsibility to document the wrongs of society? If we pass a crime scene where we are unable to intervene, such as a group of policeman beating an unarmed old lady, should we document that or walk by?
 
JohnTF said:
I have photographed mounted police with ID illegally removed clubbing protesters, including a plain clothes university policeman, and police beating kids protesting at the Davis Cup Matches. The first were published in several publications on campus, the second in the local paper and Tennis Magazine.
I was called as a witness, but did not have to testify. One of my photographers was clubbed with his Nikon F being smacked with a billy club. I was friends with the AP photographer and made sure my press card was displayed.


While attending a conference in Columbus, one of the state's attorneys asked for a show of hands of attendees who had smoked, he quickly explained that it was not illegal (at least in Ohio) to have taken drugs, only to possess them.


Almost any kind of "street" photography may very well catch people not at the best of times, it is difficult to convey, and for the subject to judge, intent.

Sometimes I carry some small prints to show someone what I am trying to do, sometimes I remember to bring back some prints to give people a year or more later, always appreciated.

My friend Florencio photographs people very closely and personally in Mexico, he has really terrific stuff. We have shot on several day trips, many of the shots I have taken in Mexico have been obtained because he knew where to go. I try to use equipment I feel is less obtrusive looking, but he tells me generally he finds ordinary Mexican people view someone with serious looking equipment as an artist, and react with tolerance. Perhaps the opposite I would expect, but it is his culture.

Good to know the culture.
Click to expand...

Depends on the neighborhood. I've found that people living in higher class neighborhoods tend do get paranoid around big cameras. A lady called the cops on me once when i was taking pictures of my uncle's Subaru Impreza in front of his place. People in less wealthy neighborhoods seem to respect photographers more and are sometimes even genuinely interested in the technique or equipment you employ. I've spent an hour explaining a gang member how I made long exposures with my almost century-old Kodak 3A, and it was all good, he genuinely wanted to understand. But try not to get to confident around these people if there isn't a lot of people around, I only stayed with this guy because we had some mutual friends. Some of these people might see some selling potential in your gear.

Also, if you're ever in Monterrey send me a message, maybe we could go out shooting.
 
I have documented some illegal activity myself but mostly just graffiti and street art. I find graffiti writers to be much less dangerous than drug users or other types of criminals. I have had the opportunity of photographing much worse stuff (car thieves, etc.), but I simply pass, that just isn't for me.
 
I take pictures of people smoking weed all the time, but in 90% of cases, I try to conceal the eyes through framing, angle of view, or even smoke.
 
I've done it but not lately. I was in a bit of a 'bad place' 3 years ago but I've dug myself out of it but I do look back with a bit of odd fondness actually. Glad that I went there so I could look back on it.

Anyway I wouldn't post any of the photos online; it just wouldn't be the done thing showing former-friends and so forth cutting up and off their heads on gear. The only reason I got the photos is because I was also off my head and I was just the one with a camera. Never seemed to bother anyone oddly. We're not talking big-time dealers here, just small time users (of which I was one) and a few folks with business connections and interests.

I don't think I'll ever publish the photos, they weren't taken with any intent even to document. I was just so f*cked at the time and I had a camera and shot, for no reason whatsoever!

I'm obfuscating some of this in a book I am writing however; and that's where my fondness comes from of this time, no one got hurt -- thankfully -- and yes I did regret where I went but I learnt more in those 2-3 years or so than I probably have in any other time in my life. Gives you an interesting outlook on life!
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Stewart,

It is frightening how many policemen, even in a so-called liberal democracy, not only fail to see the advantage of a free press but do everything in their power to destroy it.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

First of all Mr. Hicks, I used to be an investigator, and used photography to document illegal activities. So I have a different perspective than most others who have posted here.

Part of being in a democracy is to obey the courts. Most here have been talking about taking photos of people who are taking part in non-violent illegal activities.

Riots are not, by definition, non-violent. If you have been close to one, the people don't seem to remember any sense of decency or respect for the safety of others. They seem to wish to only engage in destruction, whether of property of bodies. Then when the police (who are human too), react in the same vein, the police are condemed, but the rioters are not. Well, granted, police are susposed to by training, remain emotionally uninvolved. Sometimes, that doesn't work out well, even though it should. Sometimes it is self defense.

Maybe I misunderstood your post sir, but if the newspaper published photos of recognizable people (which often happens), why would they be surprised the police would be interested in other photos they might have. The use of supeana protects the police and the newspaper.

Oh well, rant mode off.
 
I've been on shoots where I photographed people smoking weed, and it's often easier to gain their trust if you take a few tokes with them. Weed no longer has the stigma that it had years ago, what with "medical marijuana" laws and minor fines in some jusisdictions for simple posession.
 
Usually, the rule of thumb is that illegal activities and cameras do not go together. If the photographer can document it, so can the POLICE. Who cannot always be counted on to arrive at the correct conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom