Again with the Photographer Harrassment

[JoeFriday]

So, Melanie.. if I see you on the street, do you mind if I take your photo? 😀

 

[bmattock]

It's not like I don't think people have a right to take my picture in public places, but I really wish they wouldn't, or at least be polite and ask first (I know, this kind of is against the whole point of street photography). In my world, taking my picture without asking me for permission is perfectly legal, but also extremely rude. Sorry -- just how I feel.

I sympathize with you, and although I make it a habit to never ask permission to take photographs of people in public, I do understand how you feel. If a person asks me not to take their photo, I won't. The fact that they have taken notice of me ruins the shot I was after most times anyway, so there is little point in continuing to try to take a photo after they've asked me not to.

I only get sniffy when told that "I have to ask their permission first". Only had it happen twice so far. Strangely, both from people who should know better; once from the cop I mentioned, and once from an artist who was displaying her paintings in a street exhibition (I was taking a photo of her, not her paintings). I do well being asked, less so with being ordered - especially when there is no law to back up the presumed legal authority.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

She didn't say "radish" Bill, she said "ravish!" 🙂

Oh, that's very different! Wow, and to think I was running away! I just *have* to quit guzzling cough syrup.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[JoeFriday]

I'd say the Patriot Act has already consigned the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the category of historically interesting pieces of paper.

Peter

not to pick on you, Peter, but I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that you've never read the Patriot Act.. nor has anyone else who makes that sort of statement

unfortunately, most paranoia and examples of police overstepping their boundaries are due to ignorance of, not the implementation of, the Patriot Act.. but I'm not trying to start an argument here

 

[dadsm3]

What do you expect a union rep to say? If I pay somebody to represent me (union or lawyer), they better do so, especially if there's any chance of a lawsuit. I don't know if an apology is an admission of guilt or not, but if there was some litigation I'd prefer not going into court having already admitted my mistake.
That being said, there's really nothing worse than a cop wannabe.....

 

[peterc]

In my world, taking my picture without asking me for permission is perfectly legal, but also extremely rude.

You live in a major city so your picture is probably taken 100 times a day without your permission. There are bank, store, restaurant security cameras snapping away 24/7. Many businesses don't only record what goes on inside, but what happens on the street outside as well. Add to that traffic cameras and the like and a good portion of your day once you leave your home is recorded.
Police often don't go looking for witnesses now ... they just go up and down the street collecting security video.

Peter

 

[peterc]

not to pick on you, Peter, but I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that you've never read the Patriot Act.

I'll admit I haven't read all of it ... but I've been through a fair bit of it.
And I'm not saying the U.S. is the only country that has (IMO) needlessly sacrificed liberties in the wake of 9/11 ... Canada has some similar measures.

Peter

 

[ch1]

George,

I agree that humiliation is never productive. But owning up to your own errors is a matter of integrity. It is hardly a matter of humiliating someone, least of all yourself.

The fact that they "think" that admitting they were wrong would make them the "victims" is just further evidence that these officers are totally misguided.

Moreover, forcing people to admit their mistakes encourages open dialogue and may serve as a positive example to their fellow officers in the future. If anything, it will convince me that they have the capacity to learn, a positive trait I look for in sentient beings. So far, they and their union reps have not convinced me that they possess that evolutionary trait. Too bad, because they will most assuredly repeat the mistake in the future.

Tom,

We're in basic agreement on this. But I get a sense of a bit of a media "pile on". WABC-TV "pioneered" tabloid television journalism in the NY area over thirty years ago with lurid "teaser" ads that basically promised "stay tuned, body bag at Eleven PM").

The NYC area is a media hot house with many outlets trying to outdo the other. Notice that the headlines says the guy was held for "hours". In the text they state two hours - which is the smallest amount that it could be and still be the plural of "hour".

Further, the officer's employer immediately admitted that its employees were wrong and apologized. It was the media that then figured that the individuals should also have to do so. That to me seems to be an exercise in humiliation.

If I screw up on my job and my boss publicly announces I did so - what is gained by further pursuing it?

Perhaps the real story is that there are apparently serious labor/management "issues" within the Office of Court Administration. But of course this story isn't "lurid" enough for WABC's "Eyewitness News".

I'm sorry the fellow got stopped for a couple of hours and agree it should not have happened and will hopefully not happen again - but perhaps these officer's have a point in saying their employer has neither trained them nor given them guidelines on how to deal with this situation in New York in this post-9/11 era?

 

[JoeFriday]

I tend to be on the side of the photographer in this case, George.. a police officer should not be told to 'shoot first and ask questions later'.. or rather, arrest/detain first, and then figure out if a crime has been committed

the police definitely need to be trained better (as I've discovered in many situations in recent years, they are not).. and while some blame should be placed on their superiors, the police themselves have taken an oath to protect the law.. so pleading ignorance should garner them the same amount of protection that it grants you the next time you show up in court and say "but your honor, I didn't know it was illegal to go 50mph in the school zone"

because the police enforce the law, they should know it better than the citizen who is expected to abide by it at all times

 

[bob cole]

"I am personally one of those people who is totally uncomfortable with someone taking my picture without asking for permission," --MelanieC said.

I agree...On assignment for a major Manhattan newspaper some years ago, a TV cameraman started filming me taking notes and I protested that I was not the news, that the news was in back of him... He was upset but backed away...

Another time I was at a cocktail party and a TV reporter with a cameraman in tow asked me what I thought, pointing the camera at me...I asked the reporter to stop and to tell me what she [the reporter] was asking me about...what I thought about what? The reporter explained that there was a chemical explosion at one of the host's plants and wanted to know what I thought about it...I replied that I was invited to a cocktail party and that's all I knew...The reporter was very upset...I believe it must have been the reporter's first assignment...

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

because the police enforce the law, they should knowit better than the citizen who is expected to abide by it at alltimes

Here Here!

 

[back alley]

taking a cynical look at it...if the cops were already pissed off at the first reprimand maybe the plan was to invoke the opposite reaction from the same court - different judge- and hope for the publicity to embarras the court and get something definite to work from.

 

[ch1]

I tend to be on the side of the photographer in this case, George.. a police officer should not be told to 'shoot first and ask questions later'.. or rather, arrest/detain first, and then figure out if a crime has been committed

the police definitely need to be trained better (as I've discovered in many situations in recent years, they are not).. and while some blame should be placed on their superiors, the police themselves have taken an oath to protect the law.. so pleading ignorance should garner them the same amount of protection that it grants you the next time you show up in court and say "but your honor, I didn't know it was illegal to go 50mph in the school zone"

because the police enforce the law, they should know it better than the citizen who is expected to abide by it at all times

Brett,

Although court officers are "peace officers" and are "law enforcement officials" in a broadly defined sense - they are not true police officers. They are not well-trained, they don't attend the Police Academy for instance etc. Their "jurisdiction" is strictly the courthouse and grounds around it.

They tend to be rather large fellows (to more easily subude unruly prisoners in court rooms) who are hired mainly for the physical "presence". Their pay is a fraction of what police officers make so you might say that they are hardly the "creme de la creme" of the law enforcement community. Essentially they are "security guards".

I'm not excusing what they did - since it was clearly wrong. But their actions probably says a heck of a lot more about their poor training then it does about any supposed erosion of our civil liberties.

 

[MelanieC]

Hi Brett,

I don't mind you taking my photo, if you ask first. If you don't, I guess I don't have a choice but to deal with it but I won't like it.

You live in a major city so your picture is probably taken 100 times a day without your permission. There are bank, store, restaurant security cameras snapping away 24/7. Many businesses don't only record what goes on inside, but what happens on the street outside as well. Add to that traffic cameras and the like and a good portion of your day once you leave your home is recorded.

This is true, but I also think it's a red herring. Security cameras are not street photography. They are not singling me out, following me around. They are not personal. When I walk down the street, I know other people on the street see me, but it's not the same as someone staring at me, if you get what I mean. I didn't say it was rational, and like I said it's perfectly legal for anyone to take my picture and I don't think it should be otherwise. But it makes me uncomfortable, and if you are a street photographer I think it behooves you to be aware that often your subjects may be unwilling or unhappy about being subjects.

I have seen a number of street photographs in galleries where the subject looks annoyed, angry, offended, or intimidated, and even read comments by the photographer to this effect. Often these comments are laced with a little bit of pride at being able to bag the shot anyway. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think it's not unreasonable to feel a bit violated by street photography, and some people might have past experiences that make them feel even more so.

This is why I don't do street photography -- this, and the fact that I'm usually bored by pictures of people I don't know. I like taking people candids, but I want them to be of people who matter to me. If that makes me a bourgeois sort of Leica dabbler, so be it.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

George,

I concur that the officers' training was inadequate and perhaps it is more important to work from that angle first, to get the proper guidelines down.

Your point about media pile on is also well taken. That sort of media hype is its own form of stupidity that I find distasteful and pointless.

I found the officers' refusal to admit wrongdoing troublesome largely in the context of what our culture seems to be seeing nowadays. Whether it is in government, business, or personal conduct, there is a culture of never admitting wrong, even when it is plainly evident you've done something wrong. Enron, MCI, Quest etc etc ... and I leave out governments, but you're smart enough to discern the pattern.

I remember when Warren Buffett temporarily took over Solomon Brothers during their scandal. When hordes of media consultants, attorneys and other 'handlers' would have advised plausible deniability. Buffett came in, and bluntly stated that the management's past conduct was flatly wrong. No excuses. He personally apologized (even though he had nothing to do with the wrongdoing). That is the sort of plain spoken simple honesty that I'd like to see our culture getting back to. Sometimes, simple honesty earns you well deserved respect. Buffett certainly earned mine 🙂

 

[JoeFriday]

ah.. I had missed the part about 'court officers'.. and I agree that they have a similar, but different, role than peace officers.. still, I'm going to argue that they assumed the responsibilties of a 'peace officer' when they detained the photographer.. thus they are still fully culpable for their actions.. they should have enlisted the help of a police officer if they felt a crime was being committed

my overall opinion about instances like this where police infringe upon the rights of a citizen unlawfully is that the police should be held accountable just like a citizen who is breaking the law.. well, maybe that is going a bit too far.. I'm not suggesting that a police officer be arrested for trying to enforce the law as he sees fit.. but the opposite is actually what happens in most cases.. nearly every municipality in the United States has an excemption that prevents their employees from being sued or otherwise held accountable for their actions.. I wish I had that kind of job security!

 

[ch1]

ah.. I had missed the part about 'court officers'.. and I agree that they have a similar, but different, role than peace officers.. still, I'm going to argue that they assumed the responsibilties of a 'peace officer' when they detained the photographer.. thus they are still fully culpable for their actions.. they should have enlisted the help of a police officer if they felt a crime was being committed

my overall opinion about instances like this where police infringe upon the rights of a citizen unlawfully is that the police should be held accountable just like a citizen who is breaking the law.. well, maybe that is going a bit too far.. I'm not suggesting that a police officer be arrested for trying to enforce the law as he sees fit.. but the opposite is actually what happens in most cases.. nearly every municipality in the United States has an excemption that prevents their employees from being sued or otherwise held accountable for their actions.. I wish I had that kind of job security!

Brett,

Last year when that defendent in Atlanta went ballistic and grabbed a gun, wasn't it a couple of court offiers who died?

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I don't think it's unreasonable for myself or others to expect "accountability" from those who are sworn to uphold the law.

A simple public admission of a mistake is only humiliating if one wantsit to be. A wise person would get this and move on it. Quickly.

 

[andrewmore]

Here in the UK we have had problems between the police and the press. An agreed guidance notice scheme for both is now beeing put in place . If they can sort matters out for press photographers I expect the same will be able to be done for amateurs also.

If you go to the Amatuer Photographer web site (www.amateurphotographer.com) and enter 'press police' into the search box you will get the story along with some links to the agreed documentation. I imagine that something similar should be able to be followed elsewhere.

Regards

Andrew C. More

 

[bob cole]

speaking of street photographers, there must be lots of people here who know of Bill Cunningham's street pix in The New York Times...Everyone published looks pleased...He must have a special formula...