War on Photographers

[Jack Conrad]

Probably no more or less than if you were taking photos of someone standing at their vehicle and pumping gas the same way. More so because of how you took the photos than the subject. Why be sneaky about it?

Why be "sneaky?" 😡

Are you kidding? I'm not a war photo-journalist,
and I'm not gonna jump out of the car, run up close with my camera and shoot an armed paramilitary mercenary cop with my slr and a big ultra wide. That would be stupid. Better sneaky than stupid.

 

[pakeha]

I live in rural Central Florida where there are no large cities, or any likelihood at all of organized insurrection or mob violence, yet cops are being outfitted with all sorts of paramilitary equipment and training...

A rhetorical question... Why are the police being outfitted in miitary camouflage gear?

Ha, and down here we got concerned about the Police getting tazers.
Now they got them some cops are starting to imitate the real `tough guys'.
I`m ok with the cops here getting armed...last time they got a new issue of Glocks the damage was two policemen shot in the foot😀

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I was once taking photos of a brand-new sports facility at a local university that was just about completed. The campus security, having watched me for a few minutes without confronting me, decided that what I was doing was suspicious and called the cops. Four cops in two cruisers arrived and began yelling at me. I started walking over towards them to respond to their questions when they screamed stop where you are and put your hands on your head. One cop even pulled a gun on me, and I had not even opened my mouth yet. I was (at that time) a 22 year old student myself by the way-- what if I were a student there? They proceeded to search through my car, throwing everything on the ground. Once they had enough of searching, they allowed the conversation to begin. They let me stand up off of the curb and out of the wall of policemen surrounding me to speak with the officer in charge. He asked me some questions which I answered and they left me with a warning to never step foot on the campus again, an hour and a half of my time wasted, and a mess of my possessions (from my car) all over the ground in the parking lot.
Crazy.
Then again, I have been pulled over for speeding 9 times and have never been written up or issued a ticket (including once when I was going 130 in a 55)...

No offence meant here, but I hope and guess that those cops committed an abuse, otherwise I can only say I'm so glad I do not live in the States if that's how police can legitimatly treat a citizen.

Unless they have reasons to believe that you carry a weapon, the police here in Norway cannot carry weapon themselves as they approach you, not even to stop a street fight on friday night (and no, this hasn't changed after the horrible mass murder in July).

When it comes to photography, the worst you risk if someone gets in your way and calls the cops is to be gently approached by police officers and to have to explain to them what you're doing. A minute later, you'll be shooting again right there.

Just a week ago a photographer became somehow suspicious as he indulged in photographing kids at a public event. The police was called by some worried parents. They had allegedly reports on this man doing the same in earlier circumstances so they asked him to follow them to the police station for questioning, more cause the crowded place wasn't appropriate to that than else. He was shortly later released as far as I know.

 

[mfunnell]

One thing I was glad to note was that these guys here in Oz (some years ago):

seemed to know rather more about the laws governing photography than your usual plod, despite their semi-paramilitary get-up, and despite not being taken entirely seriously by those they were policing:


...Mike

 

[lynnb]

I remember reading an account from a photographer in the former DDR (East German Republic), who said that street photography in East Germany was nothing that generated any excitement or suspicion. That was under a tightly controlled communist government (I can recommend the film The Lives Of Others, for a take on what it was like for intellectuals and artists living under the Stasi). Admittedly it was decades ago, but if true, it's ironic to compare with the level of suspicion and occasional outright hostility that is reported so often now.
An earlier post mentioned fascism. This was also known as Corporatism.
Mistrust and hostility towards photographers will persist while populations are conditioned to be fearful. A fearful population is a compliant population - just ask Goebbels. A Corporatist State would benefit from a compliant population.

 

[dave lackey]

No offence meant here, but I hope and guess that those cops committed an abuse, otherwise I can only say I'm so glad I do not live in the States if that's how police can legitimatly treat a citizen.

Unless they have reasons to believe that you carry a weapon, the police here in Norway cannot carry weapon themselves as they approach you, not even to stop a street fight on friday night (and no, this hasn't changed after the horrible mass murder in July).

When it comes to photography, the worst you risk if someone gets in your way and calls the cops is to be gently approached by police officers and to have to explain to them what you're doing. A minute later, you'll be shooting again right there.

Just a week ago a photographer became somehow suspicious as he indulged in photographing kids at a public event. The police was called by some worried parents. They had allegedly reports on this man doing the same in earlier circumstances so they asked him to follow them to the police station for questioning, more cause the crowded place wasn't appropriate to that than else. He was shortly later released as far as I know.

Andrea, even with my distrust of "those in power" wherever they may be, that is not how police treat citizens in the States. On occasion, there are problematic personnel. On occasions, there are mistakes. And yes, on occasions, the person being hassled may not know what communication went on before the police arrived on the scene and they may well have had a reason for acting they way they did. The "victimized individual" may never know.

My problem as a native in the Southern U.S. is not the law. It is not the overall law enforcement community. It is a small 0.1% or whatever of the attitudes of some personnel whether from lack of experience, age, or lack of training. Too many are hung up on being macho with a false sense of superiority and self-importance, but they don't usually last very long. The very small percentage of corrupt personnel, probably do hang on way too long, though, and thank goodness there are not that many of them either.

Law enforcement has come a long way since before the 1960s. A lot good and a lot not so good. There is still hope for a kinder society.:angel:

Would I photograph a LEO? Only after talking with them...it has worked well in the past.

 

[Jack Conrad]

=lynnb;1804932
An earlier post mentioned fascism. This was also known as Corporatism.
Mistrust and hostility towards photographers will persist while populations are conditioned to be fearful. A fearful population is a compliant population - just ask Goebbels. A Corporatist State would benefit from a compliant population.

This is exactly what's occurring.
Except there are a vast array of new and improved compliance technologies.

 

[sepiareverb]

Four cops in two cruisers arrived and began yelling at me. I started walking over towards them to respond to their questions when they screamed stop where you are and put your hands on your head. One cop even pulled a gun on me, and I had not even opened my mouth yet. I was (at that time) a 22 year old student myself by the way--

Scary. As hard as it can be to have some other moron screaming at me a gun drawn by a cop is a whole different level. Was this in Boston?

 

[gdi]

I don't think this is true. Any proof of this?

I have not read of anything so strict as the laws I understand are in place in the UK. He may referring to recording audio or video/audio, which may violate some state laws against recording a conversation without the prior permission of all parties.

 

[gdi]

Fascism is the union of capitalism and state power (or so it was defined by Mussolini and his cohorts).

By this measure the US is far down the road to being a fascist state. The small freedoms that are currently permitted (e.g. protesting in a specially allocated holding pen) will evaporate if there is a major catastrophe.

Randy

IMO, yours is a vastly oversimplified and incorrect definition of fascism. Read his definition in his own words - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp

The US is far from Mussolini's fascist ideal. Of course one can usually see whatever one seeks when evaluating any government or political system and the US is no different. Mussolini seems to position fascism between Socialism and Democracy - as a representative republic, the US system also resides between the two; I feel there is far too much corporate influence in US politics, but that in no way makes the system fascist. Those of a particular political leaning use hyperbole and twisted definitions to try to label their opposing side. If it is heard often enough, some portion of the populace may take it as fact. If you were to believe all the political labeling you could conclude that the US is a theocratic fascist state run by a socialist leader, Nazi House and Communist Senate.

 

[gdi]

I think the main issue is with the private security services. I have been confronted a couple of times in the past by these ill-informed and usually over - zealous types. In all cases (other than when I have simply been politely informed that photography is not allowed) they have claimed there are laws on the books that prohibit things like "it is against the law to photograph all structures", or "photographing anyone without their permission in any situation" ( the last one is quite popular).

I won't argue that there are some police that may act similarly, but it appears to happen only rarely.

 

[ErnestoJL]

I´ve been in Yugoslavia during 1966. No one (it is not a single person, either Police, Army or border officers) informed Us (me and my family) about photography restrictions in any way. There were none (at least in the area we were). It was by then a communist country were supposedly personal freedom had very strict and tight limits.
I was in China (PRC) during 1996 and 1997 during a business trip. The only restrictions applied to military facilities (as it is in most countries).
During september 1993 I stayed five days in Chicago and when leaving, in O´Hare airport, a security guard asked to leave all metallic things in the scanner (my SLR and three lenses too). I did. Later, when surveyed with a metal handheld detector she asked what was the metal in my belt and ordered to take it off and place it on the scanner. A bit later she found the metal button of my pants, and surprinsgly she asked me to take it off (the pants or the button?) and place in it the scanner. As I cannot take the button off, I started to unzip my pants, she shouted "What are you doing?" I answered: "exactly what you asked me to do, what else? "You´re offending me!"
Call the Police please! I said.
Game over: Go, you´re clean.
BTW, she didn´t ask about what pictures I did took during my stay, nor she required me to bring her the film inside the camera. Why?
I think that I found a paranoid safety airport guard, but that seems to be epidemic, as I see from your inputs.
Cheers
Ernesto