Long Beach Police Chief says cops can detain photographers

Nice. So the police now gets to be an artistic critic and decide what's of esthetic value and what's not ... in many cases of photos that they cannot even view on spot (film photography).
 
Yea doesn't matter what the Long Beach police chief says, law is law. If it is in a public place you can take pictures of literally _ANYTHING_, and there is nothing anyone can do about it unless they change the law. Push comes to show the photographer can take the Police Chief to court and then sue back.
 
Work must really be slow over there, that they have started thinking about this brilliant idea. What will they think of next.
 
divewizard said:
Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures "with no apparent esthetic value" is within Long Beach Police Department policy.

See the Long Beach Post Article
Click to expand...


..it's the suede denim secret police, they have come for your uncool niece...
Click to expand...

Looking forward to lots of elaborate debates on esthetics with law-enforcing officers. I'd say for the majority of police folk this hands-on approach beats any philosophy evening class on the concept of beauty.

:p
 
divewizard said:
Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures "with no apparent esthetic value" is within Long Beach Police Department policy.

See the Long Beach Post Article
Click to expand...


Hey, cool....I need some cash. Think I will book a flight over to LB for me and my attorney and a witness or two. Litigation pays well these days.:p

If the coppers can do a sting, well, what's good for the goose...
 
There are enough lawyers in California looking for work, it won't be long before the chief's city attorneys are explaining the details of this "policy" before a judge in a courtroom. Too bad I no longer live in Long Beach, I would like to try my hand at being a plaintiff in such a case.
 
Another poor headline. It sounds sexy, but what the article says is that it is policy that officers can approach a photographer, or anyone for the reasons stated. Detaining anyone is the judgement of the officers based on the circumstances they encounter during that incident.

That does leave open the bad judgement of an officer, and it is very concerning that in the article it states that no training is provided, which makes bad judgement more possible, but the policy does not state that photographers should be thrown in the pokie.

Poor headline, again.
 
Aren't most headlines poorly written?:p

Bad judgment on the policemen is for sure a concern. Also, detaining means you are not free to go...any time I am not free to go is a HUGE concern for me and I suspect most photographers.:eek:

I simply do not trust policemen, or anyone with that much power. I appreciate most of them but do I trust them? No.:)
 
I suppose in Long Beach I should carry a copy of my Philosophy BA, and a transcript showing I passed aesthetics ?

Wait, perhaps they need a consultant?

Also, make sure you are not wearing a hoodie, the signs telling you to turn in spies show the spy photographer wearing a hoodie and shooting from some unusual angle.
 
We went to the Queen Mary for my wife's birthday this past May...I would still be doing jail time for that outing...
Hopefully the LB police officers will be taking Art classes at the local Community College for this...
 
rover said:
... the policy does not state that photographers should be thrown in the pokie.
Click to expand...

Nor does the article state that this occurred, or was implied. See footnote 2:

Legally, a police detention has occurred when "a reasonable individual" in that circumstance would be believe he or she is not free to leave
Click to expand...

I agree that the headline is biased but I'm afraid so is your response.
 
As my father is a retired police officer I guess I am always amazed at the ambivolence of people to talk to an officer if approached. If you do, you may find out that they are not much different than you.
 
batterytypehah! said:
Nor does the article state that this occurred, or was implied. See footnote 2:



I agree that the headline is biased but I'm afraid so is your response.
Click to expand...

The article is about a photographer who was detained. That was the result of the interaction and at the judgement of the officer. No, perhaps the photographer was not "thrown in the pokie" but for purposes of the conversation I used that phrase in place of being detained.
 
I just want to chime in here to give buzzardkid props for an excellent Dead Kennedys placement. In the infamous words of Anthony Weiner..."kudos to you!"
 
rover said:
The article is about a photographer who was detained. That was the result of the interaction and at the judgement of the officer. No, perhaps the photographer was not "thrown in the pokie" but for purposes of the conversation I used that phrase in place of being detained.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. It's OK for you to sensationalize what really happened "for purposes of the conversation" but it's not OK for a news article to do the same for the purpose of a headline?
 
Does that mean if you are shooting film the officer will accompany you to your favorite photo store and he/she, or the city will pay for the processing and wait around for an hour so he/she can make an aesthetic judgement on your work? If not, then all you should have to do is reassure the officer that your photographs actually do have aesthetic merit.
 
rover said:
Another poor headline. It sounds sexy, but what the article says is that it is policy that officers can approach a photographer, or anyone for the reasons stated. Detaining anyone is the judgement of the officers based on the circumstances they encounter during that incident.

That does leave open the bad judgement of an officer, and it is very concerning that in the article it states that no training is provided, which makes bad judgement more possible, but the policy does not state that photographers should be thrown in the pokie.

Poor headline, again.
Click to expand...

Yep! And I think the poor headline will encourage a few wing nuts to travel to LB to challange the "policy". That cannot help. Leave it alone and let it die.

Bob
 
I say that appointed public officials, like Chief McDonnell, can be fired and replaced. And their mayor lackey supporters can be voted out of office.

It would be interesting, however, to find out how Chief McDonnell intends on educating his officers on the judging of photographic aesthetics. A bachelors in fine arts, perhaps? This would be a positive benefit to both the community and the college. Imagine: a force of local law enforcement officials who are photographically literate!

~Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom