Photograph a cop, go to jail

[FallisPhoto]

Do you have a cite for that? I am unaware of any such law.

I am going on what I was told during a field trip we took way back when I was in high school, to the FBI building in Washington DC. An agent said then that it was illegal to photograph FBI agents or other associated law enforcement personnel. One of the other students had bought one of those little "hit" cameras from a street vendor and was about to take his photo when the officer said this. Looking it up now, the only thing relevent I can find is if the cop is undercover and if he thinks your taking the photo may compromise his investigation or put him at risk then it is illegal.

Edit: The FBI agent confiscated the camera, but gave it back after we left the building.

 

[helen.HH]

Chinatown Police Precinct-NYC
M2 /50 Lux pre asph

Cheers -H

 

[bmattock]

I am going on what I was told during a field trip we took way back when I was in high school, to the FBI building in Washington DC. An agent said then that it was illegal to photograph FBI agents or other associated law enforcement personnel. One of the other students had bought one of those little "hit" cameras from a street vendor and was about to take his photo when the officer said this. Looking it up now, the only thing relevent I can find is if the cop is undercover and if he thinks your taking the photo may compromise his investigation or put him at risk then it is illegal.

Edit: The FBI agent confiscated the camera, but gave it back after we left the building.

Fair enough - but I think your FBI agent lied to you.

There are indeed laws against interfering with the police. However, that's a different crime than taking a photo of an undercover cop. And apparently, it is perfectly legal to take a photo of an undercover cop. Like many things, it is what you do with the photo that matters, not that you took it.

 

[dmr]

LOL, a local friend just told me this.

He works in a building right next door to an OPD precinct station and yesterday somebody had discarded some kind of a dummy in a dumpster behind the OPD with the feet caught in the dumpster lid! He went over and took photos of it. I just asked him if he was afraid of photographing police property he said no, they get along with the cops fine and they saw him do it.

I'll see if I can get a copy of those.

 

[migtex]

So the "Fundamentalists"(whatever religion or political colour) take our liberties away. The police and our (supposedly ) "free" governments now take our liberties away too so they can fight the "Fundamentalists".
The only option is?..... anyone?

 

[Trius]

One thing is universal. Cops and Donuts.

The Irondequoit police department holds staff meetings at Timmy's, aka "The Cop Shop".

 

[Trius]

So the "Fundamentalists"(whatever religion or political colour) take our liberties away. The police and our (supposedly ) "free" governments now take our liberties away too so they can fight the "Fundamentalists".
The only option is?..... anyone?

Repression is a symptom of fear, fear is based on ignorance and lack of compassion.

Commit our lives to the opposites.

 

[BillBingham2]

Me too

Me too

........Every time I hear a US citizen calmly speak of the loss of personal liberty with the words, "If it saves one life, it is worth it," I die a little bit inside.

It makes me very sad too. Liberty is wonderful thing, I really think few people understand the magnitude of it nor the delicate balance that keeps it in place. When you look back at what happened during the cultural revolution in China compared with today they have improved civil rights 1,000,000%. Are they as good as the UK or the US, no, but we have had more time to focus on this sort of society. The zealots on all sides (e.g. Christian, Islamic) concern me as they focus on brining you into their way of life by any means possible including a one way ticket to Heaven or Hell.

Perhaps there is something to Baha'i or Buddhism. Lots to learn.

B2 (;->

 

[Trius]

Before we get too over-excited, a version of this law has been in operation for several years in the UK, and for much longer in Northern Ireland, IIRC, and is aimed at people doing reconnaissance for terrorist attacks. It doesn't make it an offence to take photographs of policemen, soldiers or spies, it makes it an offence to collect information about them 'likely' to be of use to terrorists. Like most common law jurisdictions, it will ultimately be up to the courts to interpret what that means and I suspect most judges would take a dim view of the police arresting people simply for taking innocent photographs of policemen.

I do wish someone would define "likely". It would make things much easier, don't you think?

 

[FallisPhoto]

Every time I hear a US citizen calmly speak of the loss of personal liberty with the words, "If it saves one life, it is worth it," I die a little bit inside.

Personally, I think that sentiment, more than anything else, reveals the speaker to be a drooling idiot.

 

[lic4]

Personally, I think that sentiment, more than anything else, reveals the speaker to be a drooling idiot.

Much like "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."

 

[sojournerphoto]

Yes, our government is becoming more extreme in it's removal of freedoms by the day. Sadly, I think most of us are too busy watching casualty to notice.

When I was stopped by private sector security guards working for the ministry of justic (sic) and subsequently complained the response admitted that I had done nothing illegal and that they had acted beyond any authority or instruction they were supposed to have received (although they said they were following orders) but still suggested that the behaviour was reasonable.

I find the whole situation painful and disturbing. Even the BJP report got it wrong in that it focused on journalists, but the reality must be that individuals have the necessary rights to expose wrongs, as well as making pictures for themselves. It's not the case that we should license those who are allowed to photograph!

Mike

 

[le vrai rdu]

cops round there don't like to be on pictures , but sometimes, with discretion........

but never never disturb their intimacy

 

[FallisPhoto]

Much like "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Yeah, I'd just have to remember to ignore anything he ever says for the rest of his life after that.

 

[bmattock]

Therefore, it would need to be proven that a 'photographer' was gathering intel "preparing an act of terrorism'. That act would need to be proven.

To obtain a conviction, yes. To stop people taking photographs, insist that they delete digital images, detain, frisk and otherwise harass citizens, no.

Ah, I see you came to the same conclusion I did...

I would suggest that the law is designed as a holding charge. Suspects that are found either photographing, or with photographs of law enforcement or intel officers AND with a bunch of other evidence can then be held while investigations continue. It's the other stuff that defines them as a terrorist and which separates them from us.

Unfortunately, it also allows them to hold people who are ultimately NOT terrorists until they reach their conclusion.

Convictions are 'innocent until proven guilty'. Arrests are 'guilty until proven innocent'. So take a photo of a cop, get arrested. Spend a few nights in the slammer until they figure out you're not a terrorist. In what way does that NOT infringe on my rights?

 

[oftheherd]

There is NO JUSTIFICATION for punishing citizens for exercising freedom of speech or association. Joe McCarthy got what he deserved-- being discredited as a demagogue who used fear as a tool to further his career. Much like Rudy Giuliani.

That was indeed the problem. There were indeed communists whose goal was the forceful overthrow of the US Government. However, McCarthy's method of guilt by association, intimidation by accusations of all sorts of disgusting crimes when he knew the person was not going to answer, and insuring that was all on public TV, was not the way of American justice. That is why he eventually went down. As much as many citizens were afraid of cummunism, they were more apalled by McCarthy's methods.

 

[oftheherd]

...

If what we want is merely safety, I have a solution, right now. It is guaranteed to work. Simply put - do what the terrorists and radical Islamists say. Convert to their version of Islam. Surrender our governments and lay down our arms. We will not be harmed, and the 'war' will be over. They will have 'won', but so what? We'll be safe. We'll be able to go on with our lives, more or less the same as before.

...

I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I would disagree with your statement that we would be able to go on with our lives more or less the same.

My daughters have completed college. They nor my wife are required to hide their faces in public. No one else's religious artifacts in the USA will be destroyed by government edict. If I steal, I may go to jail, but I will go with both hands intact.

The fundamentalist/radical terrorists in Islam don't seem to see it that way. Please note that I don't place all muslims in that category, nor do I defend any religious fundamentalists of any religious persuasion, that hide behind a religion to commit acts that most would consider illegal.

 

[lic4]

That was indeed the problem. There were indeed communists whose goal was the forceful overthrow of the US Government. However, McCarthy's method of guilt by association, intimidation by accusations of all sorts of disgusting crimes when he knew the person was not going to answer, and insuring that was all on public TV, was not the way of American justice. That is why he eventually went down. As much as many citizens were afraid of cummunism, they were more apalled by McCarthy's methods.

And the only difference now is that we aren't appalled. It seems like the whole world was disgusted by Guantanamo except for the majority of us Americans.

 

[fefe]

They don't have a problem being photographed in Jerusalem, and security is quite supposed to be quite tight here.

 

[bmattock]

I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I would disagree with your statement that we would be able to go on with our lives more or less the same.

My daughters have completed college. They nor my wife are required to hide their faces in public. No one else's religious artifacts in the USA will be destroyed by government edict. If I steal, I may go to jail, but I will go with both hands intact.

The fundamentalist/radical terrorists in Islam don't seem to see it that way. Please note that I don't place all muslims in that category, nor do I defend any religious fundamentalists of any religious persuasion, that hide behind a religion to commit acts that most would consider illegal.

The point is that if life is all we're interested in protecting, bowing down to someone else's god or prophet or whatever, and following their rules, is entirely possible and practical - if life is all you care about.

You say you care about something more - I agree, I do too. That's the point. We sacrifice liberty for 'safety', but in the end, it's not just safety we want. If it was, we could have it, today, by giving up.

That was my point. Most of us in the West do not want to force our daughters to wear the chador or our wives to walk behind us, etc. We are willing to fight to keep that from happening. So let's drop this crap about giving up our rights in order to protect ourselves - it is our rights that allow us to NOT have to follow such religious rules.