Detroit Newspaper Photographer Arrested While Covering Police Action

[EdwardKaraa]

Assuming, for the moment, that this is true, how do you proceed from there, to the proposition that police officers have some right against being photographed in public - a right, I might add, that is accorded to no one else in a public place, whether or not they are there in the course of their work?

I didn't understand that there ever was such proposition. The officers obviously broke the law by arresting that pseudo-journalist. I'm just saying that we should be more understanding to where they come from and who they are. I'm sure if that guy being arrested has murdered or raped your sister, or sold drugs to your brother, you would see it under a different light. let these guys go on strike for a couple of days and let me see the state of your city and how people would be begging them to go back to work.

 

[semilog]

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

[tarullifoto]

I didn't understand that there ever was such proposition. The officers obviously broke the law by arresting that pseudo-journalist. I'm just saying that we should be more understanding to where they come from and who they are. I'm sure if that guy being arrested has murdered or raped your sister, or sold drugs to your brother, you would see it under a different light. let these guys go on strike for a couple of days and let me see the state of your city and how people would be begging them to go back to work.

On the contrary, if the guy being arrested had done any of those things, I would want even closer scrutiny - if for no other reason than to make sure the police were doing their job correctly, so that justice is done. I would not want the police acting in ways that could get them accused of violating the accused criminal's constitutional rights, so that valuable evidence is excluded, and/or the charges are dismissed.

As for how I would feel during a cop strike, I would have absolutely no hesitation in supporting back-to-work legislation. If they don't like their working conditions, they can find alternate employment.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

This is where we disagree. For you being a cop is a job, for me it's a vocation and sacrifice.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Why is there no choice between "...police are always right." and "...sue the police dept..."?

There is another option. Dig in one's heels and see where the case goes. It will get thrown out, no doubt.

Phil Forrest

 

[bonatto]

I personally find the men and women of the law to be interesting and important subjects. I've been once detained in London, 30 minutes and an in-depth chat was all it took to calm the waters.

Know your rights, be respectful, and stand your ground.

 

[daveleo]

Actually I think she should take her employer to court for not defending her right to do her job and report the news she was hired to report, and getting their lawyers down to the station 10 minutes after she was arrested.
The Free Press is more to blame for her situation than the police are.

 

[clayne]

I'm sorry but there is more hostility in this forum towards cops than in Alcatraz during its days 😉 These people put their lives in danger for you guys. I think they deserve a little slack.

Uh no. Go brush up on the bill of rights and how we got here.

 

[sepiareverb]

Obviously this kind of thing is not at all the norm. For every case like this I would bet there are thousands upon thousands of images made of the police at work in the US without any repercussions. What kind of fun is a thread titled "Montpelier Cops Don't Care That They're Being Photographed" ?The cop made a mistake. Why? I don't know. I've snapped at people for no good reason on occasion. We all have lousy days.

I'd rather live in a society where this kind of thing happens from time to time than in one where vigilanteism is the "rule of law". She didn't get shot for using her camera.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

Uh no. Go brush up on the bill of rights and how we got here.

Wow man, that's a really condescending remark.

 

[oftheherd]

This is where we disagree. For you being a cop is a job, for me it's a vocation and sacrifice.

I guess there are cops for whom it is nothing but a job, and those who see the profession as a vocation with sacrifice. And there are some for whom it has all three aspects.

You seem to think because they have a tough job, they can be allowed to commit crimes without sactions. Assuming the reported facts are all the facts, you do realize at least the one officer commited crimes, don't you? And there is the propriety of it as well. Why would you sit a woman in an interrogation room for several hours, alone with the previously arrested suspect? Why would you steal the SIM card? If there was no legal reason to confiscate the SIM card (normally the whole phone should be confisctated, and I bet that officer will the next time, or find a way to erase the memory), and she wasn't given a receipt for it, that is theft. Do you condone theft by police officers?

I do not. Mind you, police are human. Still, they must know the rules and law, and abide by them. For very minor infractions, the officers peers can have a positive influence if they point out the mistake. A chewing out by the shift sergeant or lieutenant might suffice. More and perhaps some days on the street are needed. Worse or repeated infractions might require termination. Callous disregard for the law might require charges being filed and going to court. Somewhere along that path, if the department is big enough, an office might be referred for psychiatric counseling.

But these constant reminders are sometimes needed because in fact police are human and prone to mistakes or reacting in anger. If there are no sanctions for mistakes, why would they change. Over time, a police officer who gets a reputation of treating suspects and arrestees with respect, and not using more force than necessary, will gain respect. That may bring them information they wouldn't get otherwise, or even get them assistance in bad sutuations. It doesn't happen overnight, but it does happen.

So, no, I don't buy that police get a free ride. For relatively minor infractions, I don't expect the public to know everything that is done to an officer either. But no totally free rides.

 

[Mackinaw]

A follow-up on this story, from the Detroit Free Press. Worth the read:

http://www.freep.com/article/201307...rapher-free-press-mandi-wright-video-arrested

Jim B.

 

[clayne]

Wow man, that's a really condescending remark.

What's condescending is you trying to convince others that police are above the law.

Understand and protect principle. Forefathers did it for you and many others have fought to ensure we don't end up as a 3rd world police state.

So no, they're not cut an OUNCE of slack for illegally arresting someone in the act of legally photographing their actions.

Illegal detainment and false arrest are constantly used as a bullying and intimidation tactic. It is illegal and must stop.

 

[jsrockit]

So no, they're not cut an OUNCE of slack for illegally arresting someone in the act of legally photographing their actions.

WE may only have a small piece of the entire situation.

 

[clayne]

WE may only have a small piece of the entire situation.

Read the damn articles.

 

[jsrockit]

Read the damn articles.

I'm sorry to have upset you. I guess I'm just not the type to think that all articles are 100% factual without an agenda.

 

[Mackinaw]

I'm sorry to have upset you. I guess I'm just not the type to think that all articles are 100% factual without an agenda.

Considering the reporter works for the Detroit Free Press, their article is worth reading.

Jim B.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I've worked as a law enforcement officer, as others on this forum have as well and I can say that making comments about LE being above the law are myopic and I'd go so far as ignorant regarding some of the comments on the forum.

There is no black and white, only gray. Until you've been out on a beat or on patrol and have had to apprehend a person who could be dangerous, you have little to say about the situation which isn't armchair quarterback. None of us have all the facts and at the end of the day, the LEO either goes home safe or gets hurt. It is also the duty of the LEO to protect the bystanders and if there is a dynamic situation with a potentially violent person in custody, it may be in the best interest of the LEO to insist the bystanders step back. An officer knows this and it is instilled in training constantly. They are held up to a higher standard of keeping citizens safe in the eyes of the law and removing a variable from a situation of which the bystander or journalist knows little about could keep everyone safe.

I'm not encouraging the LEO in this case, I'm saying that making blanket statements about officers of the law is absolute rubbish. For every report of a journalist, citizen or professional, being harassed and or arrested, there are countless other encounters during which the officers have behaved perfectly fine. The squeaky wheel gets the oil but it is also the only one that is heard.

Phil Forrest

 

[sepiareverb]

Read the damn articles.

Wow. Somebody might want to calm down?

Looking at the video it isn't entirely clear to me that the guy was a cop - I saw no badge or insignia. Granted the video doesn't show a lot of him. Just saying that we've got a very insignificant bit of the story, and it would appear that she (the reporter) wasn't looking at the cop till he was right up in her face. Seems like this cop very likely made a mistake. From one of the articles (emphasis mine):

Wright later said she didn’t know the man approaching her was a police officer and thought he was an angry civilian. He didn’t identify himself on the tape, and his clothes carried no police insignia.

I think all of us could agree that one mistake by one cop doesn't mean every cop is going to do this - NOR DO THEY, in my experience.

... For every report of a journalist, citizen or professional, being harassed and or arrested, there are countless other encounters during which the officers have behaved perfectly fine. The squeaky wheel gets the oil but it is also the only one that is heard.

Well said.

So no, they're not cut an OUNCE of slack for illegally arresting someone in the act of legally photographing their actions.

Illegal detainment and false arrest are constantly used as a bullying and intimidation tactic. It is illegal and must stop.

Constantly? Really? I've had several interactions with various law enforcement from City to Federal while photographing and I've never once been arrested - despite refusals to immediately stop making images if I am legally allowed to do so. I almost ALWAYS respond to law enforcement with a polite but firm voice saying that I am allowed to make images and that I have no intention of interfering with their business. I was questioned once by the Navy at the USS Constitution Museum (ironic? yeah) and spent twenty minutes or so without my ID. Since then I've had several more interactions with law enforcement, and have not since been detained nor (ever) falsely arrested. "Constant" is a real error in choice of words.

An investigation has been started. No, there won't likely be any huge payout to the reporter, but everyone at the Detroit PD will be much more informed on exactly what the rights of the public and press are.

Here's my second to last encounter with a police officer:

I was given an Order of No Trespass by this cop at the request of a store owner who didn;t like me making images in a public parking lot adjacent to her store. He told me that no, I hadn't done anything wrong at all, but that the Order of No Trespass can be issued by any store owner in VT against anyone they don't like for whatever reason. Turns out he actually knew the law. I made images with my Leica also. He said "That's my good side, thanks".

Interestingly later this same day in Montpelier I was shouted down outside the Post Office, which is housed in the Federal Building. Two badges came out to tell me I could not make images of a Federal Building. I remain *gasp* scott free.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I didn't understand that there ever was such proposition. The officers obviously broke the law by arresting that pseudo-journalist. I'm just saying that we should be more understanding to where they come from and who they are. I'm sure if that guy being arrested has murdered or raped your sister, or sold drugs to your brother, you would see it under a different light. let these guys go on strike for a couple of days and let me see the state of your city and how people would be begging them to go back to work.

Your perception of the reporter as a pseudo journalist speaks volumes. You seem to have no problem getting upset at generalizations being thrown about when it come to cops just doing their jobs, so why the derisive remark about the journalist just doing her job?