Merry Christmas, You're Under Arrest

A few years ago I took a photo of my two daughter as we were sitting on a bench inside a mall in Pensacola. A police officer [Mall officer?] came over, and he told me that in the 'fight against terrorism', it was important to stop photography inside malls.
 
smiling gecko said:
in this case, i'm specifically referring to, the city of charleston police officer had no idea what the photographer was reaching in his pocket for the first time
Click to expand...

If the Charleston police officer had exercised reasonable judgement, he would not have confronted the photographer in the first place. Yes, the photographer could have been more cooperative, but he had done nothing wrong and nothing that merited being detained by the police.

The emphasis here should be on the police officer's actions, not the photographer's reaction.

Municipal police officers should not be in the business of enforcing the regulations of private businesses. If Charleston wants to ban mall photography, then it can enact an ordinance and enforce it fairly and consistently.
 
I was going to say... the security guards would have had every right to confront and ask the photographer to stop shooting... but I was under the impression, here in Canada at least... a police officer has no right or cause to detain or remove someone from private property unless a representative of that property asks them to.
 
the photographer crossed a line that could not be crossed when he allegedly struck the city of charleston police officer.
Click to expand...

Based on the events described in the article, I find your use of "struck" here laughable. The man didn't throw a punch, he didn't try to hurt the officer, he simply batted the man's hand away -- a completely natural reaction.
 
Victoria Station in London is off-limits for photos. I was photographing inside the main waiting area earlier this year, using a Canon G10, hardly a pro-looking camera. A female police officer approached me and requested that I stop taking pictures inside the Station. I was about to resist, but my girlfriend quickly grabbed me by the arm and gently pulled me away. What would have happened had I insisted on continuing to shoot? I wonder.
 
wgerrard said:
... Yes, the photographer could have been more cooperative, ...
Click to expand...

I think the photographer was well within his rights to tell the office to get f*cked. Why should he cooperate in any way shape or form? He had done nothing wrong! The officer should be put up on charges for harassment and for assault. Not the other away around.
 
jpfisher said:
Based on the events described in the article, I find your use of "struck" here laughable. The man didn't throw a punch, he didn't try to hurt the officer, he simply batted the man's hand away -- a completely natural reaction.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Touching an officer is a Very Bad Thing and will almost always result in an arrest and prosecution. Most police take it very seriously, and prosecuting attorneys and judges tend to back them up.
 
You better not point a goddam camera at my kids, you fekkin' paedos!


Especially when I am paying good money for them to sit in the lap of an unknown, middle-aged man, offering them gifts!!!
 
freeranger said:
You better not point a goddam camera at my kids, you fekkin' paedos!


Especially when I am paying good money for them to sit in the lap of an unknown, middle-aged man, offering them gifts!!!
Click to expand...

I still want to know what people expect will happen if a pervert *does* happen to take photos of kids in a mall. In precisely what way will their children be injured or exposed to danger? Aside from the 'ick' factor, what is it that parents suppose will happen that they wish to infringe on civil liberties to stop?
 
gb hill said:
So here I am hands raised, camera still in right hand, being patted down by this young police officer. When he sees I'm not carrying anything illegal he starts looking around on the ground & says it looks like you threw down a beer! I wasn't even drinking a coke! Of course he found nothing because I had nothing!
Click to expand...

My suggestion, Greg, is that next time one of your local cops stops you... RUN, and run FAST! It isn't a matter of him just being rude, he sounds completely untrained. He searched you while you still had a potential weapon in your hand???? He accused you os something he isn't sure he witnessed???? So what if he found a can in your vacinity -- what next, assume that you were drinking from it????

The cop is a goober. 🙂
 
Disaster_Area said:
I was going to say... the security guards would have had every right to confront and ask the photographer to stop shooting... but I was under the impression, here in Canada at least... a police officer has no right or cause to detain or remove someone from private property unless a representative of that property asks them to.
Click to expand...

"He saw one of the men talking to a policeman and a mall security guard"
qualifies.
 
Gumby said:
My suggestion, Greg, is that next time one of your local cops stops you... RUN, and run FAST! It isn't a matter of him just being rude, he sounds completely untrained. He searched you while you still had a potential weapon in your hand???? He accused you os something he isn't sure he witnessed???? So what if he found a can in your vacinity -- what next, assume that you were drinking from it????

The cop is a goober. 🙂
Click to expand...

Incredibly bad advice, presuming you were not jesting.

The police in the US have the right to stop anyone, and to demand to know their name, address, and what they're about. They further have the right to conduct a brief pat-down for weapons without any justification at all other than their own belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisking

Running will get you tackled. When police have to run to catch someone and then muss up their uniform tackling them, you are going to go to jail. If you did nothing wrong, some catch-all offense will be found.

The cop may indeed have been a 'goober' but running away is a very bad idea.
 
kkdanamatt said:
A female police officer approached me and requested that I stop taking pictures inside the Station. I was about to resist, but my girlfriend quickly grabbed me by the arm and gently pulled me away. What would have happened had I insisted on continuing to shoot? I wonder.
Click to expand...

My crystal ball says that had you resisted, she would have left you because you didn't show good judgement... and besides, she wouldn't have too much fun with a scarred and crippled former photographer who ended up living on-the-dole (or is it 'off-the-dole'?) because he had frequent mental disturbances due to the brain damage resulting from concussion.

Perhaps you should marry this girl ASAP... she has good judgement and seems to be very good for you!
 
bmattock said:
Incredibly bad advice, presuming you were not jesting. ... The cop may indeed have been a 'goober' but running away is a very bad idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course; that was written in jest! Thanks for noticing. I should have put the 'smiley' higher up in the posting rather than just at the bottom. I assume that Greg has the good sense to know that running from a cop is a bad idea.

Loosen your collar, Bill... and laugh a little. It's Friday after all!
 
Last edited:
Gumby said:
Yes, of course; that was written in jest! Thanks for noticing. I should have put the 'smiley' higher up in the posting rather than just at the bottom. I assume that Greg has the good sense to know that running from a cop is a bad idea.

Loosen your collar, Bill... and laugh a little. It's Friday after all!
Click to expand...

Cool. Sorry, sometimes very dry humor doesn't pass my filters. My fault.
 
If we found out the number of the police station in Charleston, how many RFFers would call the police station and bother them / complain to them?

I would look for the number post it, if people would be willing to call. How outrageous! Time to quit talking about this stuff and doing something about it!

JP
 
bmattock said:
I still want to know what people expect will happen if a pervert *does* happen to take photos of kids in a mall. In precisely what way will their children be injured or exposed to danger? Aside from the 'ick' factor, what is it that parents suppose will happen that they wish to infringe on civil liberties to stop?
Click to expand...

It's a very fair point. While it is undeniably 'icky', the fact is that an ill intentioned pervert taking photographs of clothed kids doing innocent things doesn't actually cause the kids any physical or psychological trauma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom