Another Camera Seized
Dudley Hanks
(2009-04-06)
News
Journalist's camera seized by police
Vancouver police shot a man Sunday -- and seized a newspaper photographer's
camera
as he took pictures at the scene.
The man was driving a large black pickup truck when police boxed him in.
The man was taken away by ambulance. No further information on the shooting
was available by press time.
When Province photographer Jason Payne arrived at the scene just moments
later, the man was lying on the street as more police arrived.
As he was taking photographs, "a constable pushed me away. Another officer
ran up and pushed me back into the street," said the veteran photographer.
Payne said he identified himself as a news photographer, but the police
demanded his camera.
"They said I was obstructing justice and they were going to confiscate my
camera as evidence. They ended up taking my camera from me. It was either
that or be arrested," he said. "They were manhandling me."
- End of Article -
While I normally would give the benefit of the doubt to the cops, it seems
some are getting a bit grabby when it comes to sezing cameras which could
contain damning evidence.
Perhaps it's time for photographers to contact their legislators and demand
more clarification / protection.
Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off my
camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.
Take Care,
Dudley
Paul Bartram
"Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote
> Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off
> my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.
In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is, why
seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images are on a tiny
card, not the camera itself?
Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...
Paul
Dudley Hanks
"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote in message
news:49dae15b$0$21741$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's a
professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So, maybe he spends
a couple of hours in lockup; the company lawyers would have him out in
quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were out of line -- which
it sounds like they were.
Take Care,
Dudley
Pete D
"Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message
news:ZRBCl.20472$Db2.15294@edtnps83...
All he had to do is say I will delete the shots, de;ete them in front of
them and then undelete later, mind you the cops are overstepping the mark
and should be bought to account.
J. Clarke
So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in the world?
And that there are no cameras that store information only as internal
memory, not on a card? Or are you saying that all cops are experts on
identifying cameras and the type of storage media they use?
There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory card from
the camera will suffice.
J. Clarke
Whoa! BAD advice. The cop didn't say he wanted the shots deleted, he said
that he was seizing the camera as evidence. I don't know the Vancouver laws
but in Connecticut tampering with evidence can get you 5 years in the
slammer, and deleting images right in front of a cop who has just told you
that he needed them as evidence is pretty much asking him to arrest you on
that charge.
Best thing to do if he want it as evidence IMO is ask the cop if you can
just give him the card rather than the camera, and make sure you get a
receipt from him detailing what was seized, the case number, and his badge
number, and make sure that he's got your contact information correctly so
that you have a chance of getting the camera back once the investigation is
over. He should have a form for this--often there's a tear-off receipt form
on the evidence tag.
bugbear
J. Clarke
The cops have the right to ask for evidence. If you're a reasonable person
then you should be willing to provide it, after all, somebody is _dead_ and
the person responsible needs to be brought to justice. That being the case,
anything that you can do to help the investigation is worthwhile. Don't get
so caught up in defending your rights that you lose sight of the big
picture.
If you absolutely positively don't want to give up control of the images,
then tell the cop that you're perfectly willing to let the department make a
copy as long as you don't give up control, and if he's not sure of the
procedure for that then ask him to call his supervisor. They should either
be able to make a copy on scene or at the station.
Remember also that they have a responsibility to maintain the chain of
evidence--that means that the images have to be under their control from the
time they became aware of them on--that means that if they don't have the
camera in their possession then they need to have you with the camera in
their possession until the copies are made.
As a working journalist you also have a responsibility to maintain control
of _your_ chain of evidence--put it in those terms and any cop should be
able to understand the problem.
Also note that what the cops can and cannot seize depends on the applicable
statutes which vary from state to state and outside the US from country to
country.
TonyCooper
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>
>"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote in message
>news:49dae15b$0$21741$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>>
>> "Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote
>>
>>> Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off
>>> my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.
>>
>> In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is, why
>> seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images are on a
>> tiny card, not the camera itself?
>>
>> Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
>I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's a
>professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So, maybe he spends
>a couple of hours in lockup;
That would have worked to the police's advantage. If he was
locked-up, his personal effects - including his camera - would have
been taken from him and held.
I could have been to the photographer's disadvantage. He would not
know if particular images had been deleted while the camera was out of
his possession.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Dudley Hanks
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:QYmdndFjIpoQ10bU...@posted.plusnet...
> http://www.theprovince.com/news/Statement+from+Province+photographer+Jason+Payne/1470754/story.html
>
> BugBear
Linked Info:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Cops+shoot+East+Vancouver+then+confiscate+Province+camera/1467479/story.html
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:grfh1...@news3.newsguy.com...
A news reporter should not have to surrender even the memory card if he /
she arrives after the crime has been committed and starts taking pics.
Certainly, the cops have their job to do, but so does the reporter. If the
cops think that the reporter's shots might help their investigation, copies
could be made available fairly quickly.
In this case, the culprit was captured, so it's not like they needed the
pics to identify a dangerous fugitive that was still at large.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
So, the journalist should surrender the pics? What about the journalists
job?
This is harassment. By taking the guy's camera for an hour, he was unable
to continue doing his job. If they take his card / camera, the pics can't
be published in a timely fashion, and the guy loses his story.
The investigation will be continuing long after the story is dead. Copies
of the pics could be sent after the fact to the police.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"TonyCooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pjlmt458loup1c8vc...@4ax.com...
It sounds like the camera ended up outside his possession for about an hour
anyway. Either way, the cops get his camera to themselves, so why not get
booked and create a paper trail that has to be accounted for?
Without actually booking the guy, no statements go on record, either from
the reporter or the officers. With a booking, everything has to be
explained and justified.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
In this case, the guy did not die. He was just wounded.
The reporter arrived after the incident, so he didn't have any shots of the
actual shooting, just the aftermath, and he explained all that to the
officers involved.
Let's not forget that the police aren't the only ones with a job to do in
cases like this...
Take Care,
Dudley
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>>I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's
>>>a professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So,
>>>maybe he spends a couple of hours in lockup;
>>
>> That would have worked to the police's advantage. If he was
>> locked-up, his personal effects - including his camera - would
>> have been taken from him and held.
>>
>> I could have been to the photographer's disadvantage. He would
>> not know if particular images had been deleted while the camera
>> was out of his possession.
>>
> It sounds like the camera ended up outside his possession for
> about an hour anyway. Either way, the cops get his camera to
> themselves, so why not get booked and create a paper trail that
> has to be accounted for?
>
> Without actually booking the guy, no statements go on record,
> either from the reporter or the officers. With a booking,
> everything has to be explained and justified.
>
Sorry for not following this thread, but under what circumstances
would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty much forever some
sort of criminal record even if you never go on trial? Or, are you
perhaps suggesting this as a way to provide the proof that the cops
at least had the opportunity to mess with the camera images for
later use in a civil suit? I'm neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it
seems that simply being booked is hardly a definitive statement
about what one did or didn't do, and certainly little to do with a
camera.
I have long held the belief that the hassle and expense of ANY
entanglement with cops over alleged First Amendment rights to
photograph something is FAR more onerous than just sucking it up
and talking nice to everyone involved. I understand that freedom is
precious and must be vigorously defended, but the common thought
that goes through every one of these debates is that there's some
unalienable right to protograph whatever one pleases when it just
isn't so - or at least NOT without taking a REAL chance of getting
into trouble.
And, wrt your point about booking creating a paper trail, doesn't
it also provide for the arrested person to accidently incriminate
themselves, as well as likely resulting in a HUGE legal bill?
Thanks for any further comments you may have to refute my belief
that one should "go along to get along".
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker
Andrew Koenig
news:ZRBCl.20472$Db2.15294@edtnps83...
> I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's a
> professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So, maybe he
> spends a couple of hours in lockup; the company lawyers would have him
> out in quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were out of
> line -- which it sounds like they were.
I imagine that the question going through his mind was not how long he was
going to spend in lockup, but rather how long he was going to spend in the
hospital--or in the morgue.
Dudley Hanks
"HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BE67420597...@216.168.3.30...
Far be it from me to refute your belief; I would adopt the same stance
myself in most situations.
However, if I were a professional journalist and was being impeded by the
police from legitimately performing my duties, I think I would be tempted to
push to the limit to retain my freedom.
In the States, you have a constitutionally entrenched freedom of speech. In
Canada, the press has its rights to document crime scenes similarily
entrenched. Hence, any legal proceedings to prosecute journalists for
legitimately doing their job would result in judgements that more clearly
establish precedents to delineate police authority in such situations.
By establishing a paper trail, I simply meant that reports have to be
written whenever someone is arrested (booked), and statements have to be
recorded, both the statements of those arrested and the statements of the
arresting officers. Those statements would then be used in any subsequent
court proceedings. If the police can't legally justify the arrest, then,
hopefully, disciplinary actions would be taken in order to ensure that a
similar abuse of authority would not happen again.
Obviously, your average Joe would not have access to similar legal resources
as a journalist from one of the large media chains, so compliance might be
the best way to go. But, put into a similar situation, I'd be tempted to
whip out a digital voice recorder and say, "No, you can't have my camera,
but I will give you my name and phone number so that you can serve me with a
warrant, should you decide it is necessary. BTW, what is your name and
badge number?" Then, stick the recorder in the cop's face and wait for his
response.
While not exactly on the same scale, I have used this technique with other
government officials when my rights have been ignored, and it has almost
always resulted in a quick change of attitude...
Take Care,
Dudley
Savageduck
> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>>> I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's
>>>> a professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So,
>>>> maybe he spends a couple of hours in lockup;
>>>
>>> That would have worked to the police's advantage. If he was
>>> locked-up, his personal effects - including his camera - would
>>> have been taken from him and held.
>>>
>>> I could have been to the photographer's disadvantage. He would
>>> not know if particular images had been deleted while the camera
>>> was out of his possession.
>>>
>> It sounds like the camera ended up outside his possession for
>> about an hour anyway. Either way, the cops get his camera to
>> themselves, so why not get booked and create a paper trail that
>> has to be accounted for?
>>
>> Without actually booking the guy, no statements go on record,
>> either from the reporter or the officers. With a booking,
>> everything has to be explained and justified.
>>
> Sorry for not following this thread, but under what circumstances
> would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty much forever some
> sort of criminal record even if you never go on trial?
This is certainly true in California where we use CLETS (California Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System). In this system every contact
made with a California Law enforcement agency is documented, even if
this is a detention and release and not a formal arrest. This creates a
very detailed "Rap Sheet" which includes professional license
applications, or background checks for Mall rent-a-cop jobs.
Some States have reciprocity with California and share this system,
others have systems which fall far short.
The FBI maintains a similar system NCIC, but is actually less detailed
than CLETS.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/clets/
I can't speak for Canada, but I would imagine the RCMP would maintain a
symilar system and if booked the photographer would have that encounter
as part of his permanant record.
For anyone who is not familiar with reading these reports they can be
confusing. For example; an entry may show an arrest for 187 PC "murder"
but there is no linked Court action. Further examination might show
that this was a classic murder investigation interveiw, of the "we need
to speak to you downtown" nature, not an arrest or detention at all.
The contact is documented and is part of the individual's permanent
record.
The lesson here is, any extended contact with Law enforcment can become
part of your permanent record.
> Or, are you
> perhaps suggesting this as a way to provide the proof that the cops
> at least had the opportunity to mess with the camera images for
> later use in a civil suit? I'm neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it
> seems that simply being booked is hardly a definitive statement
> about what one did or didn't do, and certainly little to do with a
> camera.
>
> I have long held the belief that the hassle and expense of ANY
> entanglement with cops over alleged First Amendment rights to
> photograph something is FAR more onerous than just sucking it up
> and talking nice to everyone involved. I understand that freedom is
> precious and must be vigorously defended, but the common thought
> that goes through every one of these debates is that there's some
> unalienable right to protograph whatever one pleases when it just
> isn't so - or at least NOT without taking a REAL chance of getting
> into trouble.
>
> And, wrt your point about booking creating a paper trail, doesn't
> it also provide for the arrested person to accidently incriminate
> themselves, as well as likely resulting in a HUGE legal bill?
Until civilians, including reporters understand that officers dealing
directly with an incident have a hyper-focus on the incident and are
doing a job isolating, containing and controlling the incident.
Elements which appear to them to hinder that process have to be dealt
with. Arguing with a reporter or other civilian is hindering or
obstructing the officer from doing what he/she needs to do in the
moment.
In this case it was not taking photographs in a station, it was a
shooting incident which has serious implications.
Personally I have found little reason to stop the news media from doing
their job unless they truly interfere with the resolution of an
incident or investigation.
Photographic evidence at crime scenes has been produced by incidental
witnesses, the perpertrator(unwittingly), security cameras, sometimes
the press and bystanders who might not be aware they had recorded a
crime until some days later. Very few news photographers who for the
most part are chasing tips from police/ambulance scanners capture
anything valuable.
When busy cops can be touchy. Bear in mind they are doing a difficult
job and in just the last 10 days 7 officers have been murdered, and
several more shot and wounded in the line of duty.
Confrontation with a Law enforcement agency will always have the
potential for debate when it is your ox being gored. The thing to
remember is there certainly are officers who appear to step over the
line and are in the wrong. There are also headstrong reporters and
civilians who do the same. It would be somewhat like barging into an
operating room to take photographs while a neuro-surgeon was working,
and being indignant that your First Amendment Right to record the
surgical event was being infringed on. (I know that is a poor example,
there is implied privacy in the medical field.)
>
> Thanks for any further comments you may have to refute my belief
> that one should "go along to get along".
Ultimately everybody involved should use common sense and discretion.
In this case it appears some restraint on the part of the photographer
and police supervisors led to a sane resolution of the problem.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dudley Hanks
"Andrew Koenig" <a...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:oKLCl.534166$Mh5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Oh, I doubt that was a concideration. A television news crew was in the
process of setting up...
Take Care,
Dudley
Chris H
<jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>Paul Bartram wrote:
>> "Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote
>>
>>> Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands
>>> off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.
>>
>> In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is,
>> why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images
>> are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?
>>
>> Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...
>
>So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in the
>world?
99.9% of press photographers use digital They have to.
With digital most press photographers can get their images to the news
desk in a few minutes. I think that at the Olympics It was estimated by
a couple of agencies they could get their photos on to their customers
news desks globally within 15 minutes of the picture being taken in the
stadium.
Other news coverage is similar. So how is going to use film that has to
go to a dark room, be developed and printed then scanned to be sent to a
news desk? The competition will have got them an hour or two ago.
Also with digital the photographer can check their pictures as they take
them not an hour later in the dark room when they can not take anymore.
> And that there are no cameras that store information only as internal
>memory, not on a card?
Name one... I don't know of any that don't use a card.
>There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory card
>from the camera will suffice.
True.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>> Without actually booking the guy, no statements go on record,
> Far be it from me to refute your belief; I would adopt the same
> stance myself in most situations.
Thanks for the courtesy, Dudley.
> However, if I were a professional journalist and was being
> impeded by the police from legitimately performing my duties, I
> think I would be tempted to push to the limit to retain my
> freedom.
I understand, and again, I apologize for not reading the earlier
posts in this thread but I just spotted yours this morning.
Your situation is entirely different than mine, of course, your
livelihood depends on your photographic skills and if you'd not
have had the time to upload your images prior to being detained,
you might well have lost considerable income or perhaps even
incurred some liability from a client. Moreover, if you did lose
income, you would definitely need to prove that the police were the
proximate cause in order to bring a civil cause of action against
them'
> In the States, you have a constitutionally entrenched freedom of
> speech. In Canada, the press has its rights to document crime
> scenes similarily entrenched. Hence, any legal proceedings to
> prosecute journalists for legitimately doing their job would
> result in judgements that more clearly establish precedents to
> delineate police authority in such situations.
Here is where I always fall off the table on the Bill of Rights.
Ordinary people and the mass media attempt to assume that the First
Amendment ensures absolute freedom of everything just like the folk
think that the Second Amendment gives them a God Given right to
carry a Dirty Harry down the street. In fact, neither do, nor are
ANY of the many rights, freedomes, in the Bill of Rights and
subsequent Amendments absolute in ANY sense.
I've already said I'm not an attorney, but I am a thinker and a
reader of these documents. However, I am not foolish enough to
believe that I have any understanding at all of state and federal
court decisions regarding the rights of a photographer nor do I
have any clue on precedents and case law.
You make an excellent point that whether it be in Canada or even
the US with it's much strong codified statement of rights, it is
still the seeming purview of the government to attempt to limit
it's liability and/or simply ignore the law. Without going into any
details, I'm sure all of us Americans can cite numerous examples in
the last 7 or 8 years right up to this very hour of the Feds
ursurping rights, freedoms, and protections seemingly with
impunity, and with apparently little action from the public
including our vaunted protectors of the liberal freedoms, the ACLU.
And, I also firmly believe in the need to vigorously defend our
freedoms, although I temper that opinion with the need to be
practical.
> By establishing a paper trail, I simply meant that reports have
> to be written whenever someone is arrested (booked), and
> statements have to be recorded, both the statements of those
> arrested and the statements of the arresting officers. Those
> statements would then be used in any subsequent court
> proceedings. If the police can't legally justify the arrest,
> then, hopefully, disciplinary actions would be taken in order to
> ensure that a similar abuse of authority would not happen again.
I knew what you meant by a paper trail, my question was if you felt
there were any RISKS to insisting on being booked. Those that come
to mind is an improper documentation of the case by the police, the
capriciousness of a prosecuting attorney, potential improper
behavior by a judge, even an incorrect jury verdict if any in a
criminal case.
Again, I (now) understand why your case is so much different than
Mr. and Mrs. America who doesn't have the time or money to fight an
obvious abuse by the police.
> Obviously, your average Joe would not have access to similar
> legal resources as a journalist from one of the large media
> chains, so compliance might be the best way to go. But, put
> into a similar situation, I'd be tempted to whip out a digital
> voice recorder and say, "No, you can't have my camera, but I
> will give you my name and phone number so that you can serve me
> with a warrant, should you decide it is necessary. BTW, what is
> your name and badge number?" Then, stick the recorder in the
> cop's face and wait for his response.
I'm sure that you and your many friends in the media have vastly
more resources and insights into all of this than I do, or the
average Joe. Still, doesn't this really require both a criminal
lawyer's opinion as well as one that specializes in such things as
copyright law and civil rights law?.
And, I'm not disputing your light hearted approach to using a
recorder to get the cop's report in sound, but might giving the
fuzz a hard time perhaps result in an "accident" befalling you
whereby your camera is somehow broken by the cops in the ensuing
struggle? I'm sure you know what I mean. Often, perhaps always,
when dealing with the police it is important to be both firm but
meek at the same time, while gently asserting your various rights
and insisting on proper documentation.
What I mean is that at times, not necessarily in the instance
you're referring to here, it MAY be possible to finesse the cops
and get your camera back rather than putting your foot down and
going through the booking process and perhaps spending a night or
two in the slammer until your PAID attorney could get you out.
Am I off base here?
> While not exactly on the same scale, I have used this technique
> with other government officials when my rights have been
> ignored, and it has almost always resulted in a quick change of
> attitude...
>
You've insisted on formal charges being filed, forced the agency to
formally document the circumstances where you believed your rights
were being violated, forcefully using a recorder to document
everything yourself, all of the above or something else? Again, I'm
just curious, but have you ever had any negative reactions by the
police that made you wish you'd taken a more even strain?
Thanks for your comments and have a nice evening.
HEMI-Powered
...
>> Sorry for not following this thread, but under what
>> circumstances would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty
>> much forever some sort of criminal record even if you never go
>> on trial?
>
> This is certainly true in California where we use CLETS
> (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System). In this
> system every contact made with a California Law enforcement
> agency is documented, even if this is a detention and release
> and not a formal arrest. This creates a very detailed "Rap
> Sheet" which includes professional license applications, or
> background checks for Mall rent-a-cop jobs. Some States have
> reciprocity with California and share this system, others have
> systems which fall far short. The FBI maintains a similar system
> NCIC, but is actually less detailed than CLETS.
> http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/clets/
I have no idea what we have in Michigan but even though I
completely believe you and have confidence in your view of your
protections in California, I am still personally quite skittish
about pushing too hard with the police in a potential confrontation
over my asserting my rights/freedoms to take certain photos.
But, I also understand (now) that my amateur/personal situation is
much different than Duncan's professional one.
> I can't speak for Canada, but I would imagine the RCMP would
> maintain a symilar system and if booked the photographer would
> have that encounter as part of his permanant record.
Can't speak to Canada, or Great Britain for that matter, as I'm not
at all knowledgeable about their system of government, but I have
talked to a number of citizens of each country on various Usenet
sites and the first thing they usually say is that they do not have
the general protections guaranteed by our Constitution. One fellow
I recall talked at length about British law being established as an
extension of British Common Law by both precedent and legislation,
rather than having a single document their highest court
presumabily must obey.
But, I could be entirely wrong about these countries.
> For anyone who is not familiar with reading these reports they
> can be confusing. For example; an entry may show an arrest for
> 187 PC "murder" but there is no linked Court action. Further
> examination might show that this was a classic murder
> investigation interveiw, of the "we need to speak to you
> downtown" nature, not an arrest or detention at all. The contact
> is documented and is part of the individual's permanent record.
>
> The lesson here is, any extended contact with Law enforcment can
> become part of your permanent record.
This is what I would fear most, even if I avoided court action
initially. I wouldn't like to have future rights possibly infringed
because I had some sort of record. A rediculously easy example
might be if I wanted to get a CCW for a handgun in my state and ran
afoul of the background check.
>> And, wrt your point about booking creating a paper trail,
>> doesn't it also provide for the arrested person to accidently
>> incriminate themselves, as well as likely resulting in a HUGE
>> legal bill?
>
> Until civilians, including reporters understand that officers
> dealing directly with an incident have a hyper-focus on the
> incident and are doing a job isolating, containing and
> controlling the incident. Elements which appear to them to
> hinder that process have to be dealt with. Arguing with a
> reporter or other civilian is hindering or obstructing the
> officer from doing what he/she needs to do in the moment.
> In this case it was not taking photographs in a station, it was
> a shooting incident which has serious implications.
>
> Personally I have found little reason to stop the news media
> from doing their job unless they truly interfere with the
> resolution of an incident or investigation.
> Photographic evidence at crime scenes has been produced by
> incidental witnesses, the perpertrator(unwittingly), security
> cameras, sometimes the press and bystanders who might not be
> aware they had recorded a crime until some days later. Very few
> news photographers who for the most part are chasing tips from
> police/ambulance scanners capture anything valuable.
I wish I had more/any personal knowledge of all of this beyond the
various cop shows on TV, which are obviously not at all
instructive. But, I would think that the cops at a local, county,
state, federal, or Homeland Security (for us Americans) would take
a very dim view of a photo journalist impeding their investigation
by even trampling on a potential crime scene, as in the shooting
incident you cite.
> When busy cops can be touchy. Bear in mind they are doing a
> difficult job and in just the last 10 days 7 officers have been
> murdered, and several more shot and wounded in the line of duty.
I completely agree. The police must balance public safety with
their own safety and at the same time be aware of and protect the
rights of the accused, should someone be arrested. And, modern
police are ever more under fire from the public, the media, and the
ambulance chasing lawyers among us for all manner of alleged police
brutality or racial profiling allegations, to name just two.
> Confrontation with a Law enforcement agency will always have the
> potential for debate when it is your ox being gored. The thing
> to remember is there certainly are officers who appear to step
> over the line and are in the wrong. There are also headstrong
> reporters and civilians who do the same. It would be somewhat
> like barging into an operating room to take photographs while a
> neuro-surgeon was working, and being indignant that your First
> Amendment Right to record the surgical event was being infringed
> on. (I know that is a poor example, there is implied privacy in
> the medical field.)
Yes. I think the fine line here that one doesn't want to needlessly
cross is when to protest and when to use discretion as the better
part of valor. I am a realist, yet the idealist in me does like to
believe that by far the vast majority of LEOs are themselves law
abiding and not abusive of their powers. The trick is to be able to
recognize police abuse when one sees it, and take decisive yet
appropriate action.
>>
>> Thanks for any further comments you may have to refute my
>> belief that one should "go along to get along".
>
> Ultimately everybody involved should use common sense and
> discretion. In this case it appears some restraint on the part
> of the photographer and police supervisors led to a sane
> resolution of the problem.
>
I'm happy to hear that. Thanks muchly for your detailed comments
and have a great day!
Jer
So, the confiscation of the camera (and images) was relevant to a
criminal complaint against the journalist, not the confiscation of
evidence relevant to the shooting prior to the journalist's arrival on
the scene.
Answer: Kiss my ass, and then book my ass into your jail. Need I
remind you that tampering with evidence is also a criminal charge, no
matter who commits it, so the images stay right where they are.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Martin Brown
> In message <grfh1...@news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>> Paul Bartram wrote:
>>> "Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands
>>>> off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.
>>>
>>> In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is,
>>> why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images
>>> are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?
>>>
>>> Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...
>>
>> So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in the
>> world?
>
> 99.9% of press photographers use digital They have to.
Depends what they are doing but it is a high proportion.
>
> With digital most press photographers can get their images to the news
> desk in a few minutes. I think that at the Olympics It was estimated by
> a couple of agencies they could get their photos on to their customers
> news desks globally within 15 minutes of the picture being taken in the
> stadium.
Another advantage is with WiFi or 3G enabled devices the images can be
already away and onto a second remote system long before the camera is
confiscated. Very hard to do that with film.
>
> Other news coverage is similar. So how is going to use film that has to
> go to a dark room, be developed and printed then scanned to be sent to a
> news desk? The competition will have got them an hour or two ago.
>
> Also with digital the photographer can check their pictures as they take
> them not an hour later in the dark room when they can not take anymore.
That is a double edged sword. People seem to stop thinking about
composition as a result. Polaroid was popular in days long gone as an
insurance policy for one off events that would be hard to replicate.
>
>> And that there are no cameras that store information only as internal
>> memory, not on a card?
>
> Name one... I don't know of any that don't use a card.
Oldest one I can think of is the Kodak DC120. There are others with just
enough internal memory to allow the camera to be demonstrated in store
without inserting a memory card. A devious trick would be to put the key
photos on the internal memory and let the jobsworth wipe or confiscate
the memory card. You don't usually get many shots on the internal memory
though. Most mobile phones can use internal memory for photographs and
they are ubiquitous.
>
>> There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory
>> card from the camera will suffice.
>
> True.
Usually if you are polite and businesslike with them then they are
reasonable in return (at least in the UK). I don't consider putting your
camera on the ground and standing on it as non-confrontational. Keeping
it around your neck and talking to the guy about what they want and why
is far more effective. Negotiating a compromise is a far better option.
Both individuals are just doing their job and there is no need to
deliberately escalate the encounter gratuitously. The police may want to
secure the evidence chain in case there are important images on the
camera. Digital images are much easier to fake than classical film so
there is good reason for them to want to keep them closely watched until
they are sure there is no important evidence on them.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ron Hunter
surrender anything by US law. Such a case would be cause for the cop to
be fired, and probably charged with violating civil rights of the
photographer.
Chris H
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>Another advantage is with WiFi or 3G enabled devices the images can be
>already away and onto a second remote system long before the camera is
>confiscated. Very hard to do that with film.
I have recommended this system to other people who are photographing in
contentious situations.
>>> And that there are no cameras that store information only as
>>>internal memory, not on a card?
>> Name one... I don't know of any that don't use a card.
>
>Oldest one I can think of is the Kodak DC120.
Mea Cupla.... I have a DC120 sitting on the desk in front of me :-)
Should have remembered.
>There are others with just enough internal memory to allow the camera
>to be demonstrated in store without inserting a memory card.
Point taken
> A devious trick would be to put the key photos on the internal memory
>and let the jobsworth wipe or confiscate the memory card. You don't
>usually get many shots on the internal memory though.
Exactly which is why I discounted it. A press photographer will have
taken quite a few shots.
> Most mobile phones can use internal memory for photographs and they
>are ubiquitous.
Which is why the police hassle photographers with big cameras and
tripods in case they are doing a recce for terrorists but ignore the
camera phones who incidentally can usually trasmit the photos to
anywhere in the world in seconds... never mind a DSLR with a WiFi unit
:-)
>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory
>>>card from the camera will suffice.
>> True.
>
>Usually if you are polite and businesslike with them then they are
>reasonable in return (at least in the UK).
Some times in the UK... but more often not these days. The press and
camera magazines are increasingly carrying stories of Police harassment
of photographers under section 76 of the counter terror laws. In fact
one UK photo magazine now has a permanent legal feature in each issue
>I don't consider putting your camera on the ground and standing on it
>as non-confrontational.
Neither do I.
> Keeping it around your neck and talking to the guy about what they
>want and why is far more effective. Negotiating a compromise is a far
>better option.
I agree. If you can take the heat out of the situation they can some
times actually start being helpful....
>Both individuals are just doing their job and there is no need to
>deliberately escalate the encounter gratuitously.
I agree. Besides if you do it makes it worse for the next photographer
they encounter
> The police may want to secure the evidence chain in case there are
>important images on the camera.
True. On the other hand they may want them so there are no awkward
photos in the press. In the case in this thread they had shot at some
one.
> Digital images are much easier to fake than classical film so there is
>good reason for them to want to keep them closely watched until they
>are sure there is no important evidence on them.
That is one reason there are others for the more cynical.
Dudley Hanks
I was tempted to snip a lot out of the message, just to get it down to a
more manageable size, but you make a number of good points which I couldn't
bring myself to snip out. So, I'll try to lump a few points into each of a
couple of responses and hope I cover most of the bases...
First of all, I should clarify that I was not involved in the incident, nor
am I a professional journalist. I was just bringing to the group's
attention the breaking news story of a reporter in Vancouver, Canada, who
had a run-in with some police officers while reporting on a police shooting.
Now, to illustrate that I try to practice what I preach, I'll just relate as
briefly as possible an incident which ocurred in my younger days:
I was walking down the street, carrying a case of beer with a couple of
friends. A cruiser full of cops (3) drove by and decided to check us out to
see if we were of age. In Alberta, legal age is 18, and I was about 23 at
the time.
The cops asked me for my identification, so I asked them why we were being
stopped.
The lead officer said it was a routine check to verify that we were old
enough to be in possession of alcohol. I asked him what crime we had
committed. He said that it is an offence to possess alcohol when under the
age of 18, and I might be under-aged, so he had to check.
I told him that routine checks weren't good enough, he had to have a strong
belief that I was under-aged in order to ask for ID. He said he just needed
to suspect...
I told him I wasn't going to give him any ID, since he didn't have any
grounds to think we were under-aged, and I turned to walk away.
The cop grabbed my wrist to cuff me, but I pulled my arm away and spun
around, striking the officer on the jaw with as hard a blow as I could
muster. His head spun to the left, his hat went flying, and the scrap was
on.
Yes, the three cops took me down, and, yes, they kicked the crap out of me
in the cellblock, but, things didn't go so good for them in court.
When I brought it to the judges attention that one of the three officers sat
next to me in my grade 11 math class and knew how old I was, the judge
wasn't impressed.
When delivering his verdict, the judge started by saying, "Mr. Hanks, I
cannot condone people going around and assaulting police officers..." So, I
thought I was in deep shit. But, his next sentence was, Neither can I
condone police officers who exceed their authority... And, he kicked it out
of court.
Certainly, I was the target of some rather unrelenting police attention,
going so far as to be arrested for "tampering with a motor vehicle" when I
was car shopping after hours on a car lot. The cop came up to me while I
had the hood of an old Camarro up, 15 minutes after the dealership had
closed. Sales staff were still in the showroom.
But, things have a way of working themselves out. The Crown's own witness,
the manager of the dealership, said, "No," when I asked him if he cared
whether people dropped by and popped the hoods of cars after hours. He also
said that he had personally made several sales which had started in that
sort of fashion. Also, he said that the car had not been damaged. Of
course, the cop had to admit to the judge that I didn't have any tools on my
person when I was busted, so any tampering under the hood would have been
something done with my bare hands.
Another case punted by another judge.
If you go back far enough in Canadian legal history, these files will still
be on record, I believe, as will a few others.
Of course, everything didn't go my way. I was also busted for "threatening
to kill" the brother of one of the officers. His word against mine. I
could have fought it, but, the charge was "verbal assault," and the fine was
$500, so I pleaded guilty and went back to work.
Neither that conviction, nor any residual record of the other incidents has
ever come back to haunt me. But, I have to say the reputation I gained at
the time probably kept me out of more bar fights than you can shake a stick
at...
So, yes, you'll have to deal with the ramifications of what you do, but
those ramifications aren't always as severe as people, including the cops,
would want you to believe.
In such incidents, it can boil down to a sophisticated game of chicken.
With the cops over-inflating the repercussions of not complying with their
demands, and the individual placing too much reliance on his / her supposed
rights.
And, of course, you are spot on when you say that a mixture of meek and firm
are a good rule of thumb to follow. My point is that every now and then
somebody needs to put his / her neck on the line to keep the system
accountable.
Since that time, I have studied political science in general, and have taken
specific courses in Constitutional Politics, studying both your American and
our Canadian Constitutions, not to mention the British unwritten
constitutional tradition. I am by no means an expert in the field, but I
know enough to agree with you that people tend to think they have more
rights than they can in fact lay claim to.
For me, the bottom line in this case is that the journalist was doing his
job, and the cops got carried away, probably because of a couple of high
profile videos that proved a couple of officers weren't being entirely
truthful under oath.
In this case, though, the reporter got there late, took a few pics of a
truck with its window shot out and the perp lying on the ground, bleeding,
and they didn't want anyone coming back to question their takedown. From
the sound of things, they needen't have worried (although, I wasn't there,
maybe they did...) They should be professional enough to let other
professionals do their work.
I'm not sure if I've addressed all of your concerns with this rather lengthy
response, but I hope I have. If not, perhaps we can break it up into
smaller chunks for further elaboration...
Take Care,
Dudley
J. Clarke
With a cop it might be "Oh, more evidence. I'll have that too, thank you."
If it's really an issue of evidence (as opposed to using "evidence" as an
excuse to bully you) then the police letting you leave the scene with the
camera breaks the chain of custody, which may mean that a criminal walks.
"No, I'm not going to give you the camera unless you take it from me by
force, but I'll be happy to let one of your forensics people copy the images
either here or down at the station" resolves that issue at the cost of your
time. Now, if there is something else on the card that might incriminate
you or that might lead police to a source to whom you have promised
anyonymity or some such then I can see where you might resist this. But
witholding real evidence in a criminal case when you are not being harmed in
any way other than petty annoyance by providing it, even if it's lawful for
you to withhold it, seems to me to be putting your rights before the good of
the community.
Dudley Hanks
The person involved is a news reporter. Surrendering his equipment would
result in the community getting a professional summary of the event later
than is necessary. How is this in the best interest of the community?
Take Care,
Dudley
Chris H
<ch...@phaedsys.org> writes
And right on cue from the UK counter terrorist NG
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7988828.stm
A man who died during the G20 protest was pushed to the ground by a
police officer, video footage has shown.
Ian Tomlinson, 47, collapsed from a heart attack during protests outside
the Bank of England last Wednesday.
Newsagent Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, is seen receiving a
two-handed push from a police officer.
A New York fund manager recorded the footage, saying he came forward
with the video because Mr Tomlinson's family "were not getting any
answers".
_______________
No wonder the police don't like to be filmed!
Savageduck
...and if you are using a D3 with redundant writing to two CF cards,
just give him one.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris H
<savag...@savage.net> writes
>On 2009-04-07 12:30:00 -0700, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <grfh1...@news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
>><jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>>> Paul Bartram wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your
>>>>>hands
>>>>> off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.
>>>> In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind
>>>>
>>>> are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?
>>>> Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...
>>> So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in
>>>the world?
>> 99.9% of press photographers use digital They have to.
>> With digital most press photographers can get their images to the
>>news desk in a few minutes. I think that at the Olympics It was
>>estimated by a couple of agencies they could get their photos on to
>>their customers news desks globally within 15 minutes of the picture
>>being taken in the stadium.
>> Other news coverage is similar. So how is going to use film that has
>>to go to a dark room, be developed and printed then scanned to be sent
>> Also with digital the photographer can check their pictures as they
>>take them not an hour later in the dark room when they can not take
>>anymore.
>>
>>> And that there are no cameras that store information only as
>>>internal memory, not on a card?
>> Name one... I don't know of any that don't use a card.
>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory
>>>card from the camera will suffice.
>> True.
>
>...and if you are using a D3 with redundant writing to two CF cards,
>just give him one.
I thought of that but I don't have a D3.... OTOH the Fuji 7000S Zoom
DSLR look alike had two cards.. An SD and a compact flash and If memory
serves (despite what I was saying to the contrary a few posts ago :-)
internal memory... However the internal memory was only for 1 or two
pictures I think. I suspect the internal memory is normally used as the
buffer for the memory cards when not in demo mode. SO it would I presume
slow up card writes and the ability to take pictures.
I like the WiFi idea because you can transmit the pictures back to a
laptop a friend has set up in a cafe. That will be difficult to spot as
most cafes are full of people using laptops... at least in UK cites they
are.
Or back to a laptop in the car which (AFAIK, IANAL) the police will
need a warrant to search if it is legally parked and locked. If they can
work out what you are doing and which is your car.
Dudley Hanks
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:H$H3pUBST...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
There is no shortage of video footage / still shots showing the Boys in Blue
at their worst; as is there many more instances of their heroic efforts.
Coming from a family which has produced a few law enforcement officers and
military servicemen, my sympathies ultimately coincide with the LEO's. And,
of course, my son hopes to join the thinning ranks here in Edmonton within a
few years.
Given the heated nature of most encounters where the imperitives of the
investigation meet the necessity of transparency, one would hope cooler
heads prevail, and quickly. But, as I've noted before, every now and then
an incident pops up and deliberate, assertive effort must be directed toward
protecting our hard-won civil liberties, regardless of whether one is from
Canada, the States or Europe.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009040715443336579-savageduck@savagenet...
Hey, that just might work... :)
Take Care,
Dudley
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> saying
something like:
>> The police may want to secure the evidence chain in case there are
>>important images on the camera.
>
>True. On the other hand they may want them so there are no awkward
>photos in the press. In the case in this thread they had shot at some
>one.
>
>> Digital images are much easier to fake than classical film so there is
>>good reason for them to want to keep them closely watched until they
>>are sure there is no important evidence on them.
>
>That is one reason there are others for the more cynical.
About twenty years ago in another town and another country, I was woken
from my slumber by a crash outside in the street. Going to the window I
saw a cop car head on smashed into a stolen car and the occupants of
both cars going at it hammer and tongs. Eventually the cops captured and
subdued the miscreants, but not before I'd grabbed my OM-1 and shot off
a few frames.
Later in the day I dropped the film into the local paper's office with
my story. A few days later I called in to ask if they'd processed it and
to see what the results were like.
Turned out they'd botched the processing...
YEAH. RIGHT. Bunch of arseholes - they seriously expected me to believe
they fucked up the devopment of perfectly ordinary C41 print film?
Caesar Romano
wrote Re Re: Another Camera Seized:
>I can't speak for Canada, but I would imagine the RCMP would maintain a
>symilar system and if booked the photographer would have that encounter
>as part of his permanant record.
Yes, all police states maintain a similar system.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> saying something like:
>Linked Info:
>http://www.theprovince.com/news/Cops+shoot+East+Vancouver+then+confiscate+Province+camera/1467479/story.html
Jesus. Reading the comments, I'm appalled at the number of arseholes who
can write.
Dudley Hanks
"Caesar Romano" <Sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:14qnt45cvs6k776c3...@4ax.com...
That's funny...
Take Care,
Dudley
Savageduck
...and just whereabouts in Alabama is it you live?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
TonyCooper
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>The person involved is a news reporter.
I love the way stories take on new details as the thread progresses.
It's like that game in grade school where one child whispers something
in another child's ear, and by the time the story gets around the room
it has changed completely.
According to the newspaper article, he's a photographer. Not a
reporter. Unless the newspaper he works for is a weekly advertising
broadsheet, as a photographer he doesn't write stories.
> Surrendering his equipment would
>result in the community getting a professional summary of the event later
>than is necessary. How is this in the best interest of the community?
Photographs don't provide a professional summary. A photograph is a
visual accessory to the news. The article stated that the
photographer arrived on the scene after the incident occured. All he
could have recorded was the physical scene as he found it.
The newspaper would not have delayed publication due to lack of a
photograph. Text would provide the professional summary.
Photographs were submitted by other people at the scene. There's a
photograph in the _Edmunton Journal_ showing of Payne *with* his
camera on the scene:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Civil+liberties+group+protests+seizure+Vancouver+photographer+camera/1474373/story.html
The police were wrong in what they did, but let's not re-write the
story to make it a stronger case.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jer
If the cop simply wants me to assist in their investigation by seeing
the images I may have captured with my camera, fine, I'll be glad to any
way I can. OTOH, trampling on my rights without due cause *is* harm,
and I'll gladly spend time in jail, even risk personal injury to defend
my rights. My attorney is as good as theirs, and it doesn't cost me a
dime to prove that.
Dudley Hanks
"TonyCooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9j1ot4pr6n66rfk64...@4ax.com...
Sorry, Tony, I know a few photographers who are also reporters / writers, so
I tend to treat the two as interchangeable...
Take Care,
Dudley
Paul Bartram
Here's a case where a video shot by a civilian is both evidence and 'public
interest.'. Should the police have seized this? Note: the Guardian article
does not say who took the video, reporter or bystander (or indeed a police
videographer.) But the fact that it was leaked to the press first means at
least we know about it and it can't be covered up. However, that doesn't
make it any less useable as evidence.
I know if this had happened to me (I also have a heart condition) I'd want
that thug's balls set in lucite on my desk...
Paul
Chris H
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> writes
>at their worst;
Sadly true
>as is there many more instances of their heroic efforts.
Yes but not usually on film. Whilst most of the bad behaviour is caught
often the good side is missed. But that's life.
>Coming from a family which has produced a few law enforcement officers and
>military servicemen, my sympathies ultimately coincide with the LEO's.
I prefer an objective view despite having served in the military myself
(and in civilian riot situations)
>Given the heated nature of most encounters where the imperitives of the
>investigation meet the necessity of transparency, one would hope cooler
>heads prevail, and quickly.
I hope so but a cover up will only makes things worse.
> But, as I've noted before, every now and then
>an incident pops up and deliberate, assertive effort must be directed toward
>protecting our hard-won civil liberties, regardless of whether one is from
>Canada, the States or Europe.
Why just there? Anywhere in the world.
Chris H
Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
It happens but... I suspect the newspaper wanted to stay friendly with
their local police. Also it is possible the pictures were not suitable
or gave the wrong impression.
Chris H
Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
You will have to expand on that. Just what are you objecting to.
BTW the photos don't quite match the story as originally told way back
up the thread.
Ray Fischer
>There is no shortage of video footage / still shots showing the Boys in Blue
>at their worst; as is there many more instances of their heroic efforts.
>
>Coming from a family which has produced a few law enforcement officers and
>military servicemen, my sympathies ultimately coincide with the LEO's. And,
>of course, my son hopes to join the thinning ranks here in Edmonton within a
>few years.
>
>Given the heated nature of most encounters where the imperitives of the
>investigation meet the necessity of transparency, one would hope cooler
>heads prevail, and quickly. But, as I've noted before, every now and then
>an incident pops up and deliberate, assertive effort must be directed toward
>protecting our hard-won civil liberties, regardless of whether one is from
>Canada, the States or Europe.
The problem arises when officers get into the habit of expecting
people to obey them. They can forget that the people they deal with
are not all criminals and do have rights.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Caesar Romano
wrote Re Re: Another Camera Seized:
>On 2009-04-07 16:58:19 -0700, Caesar Romano <Sp...@uce.gov> said:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck <savag...@savage.net>
>> wrote Re Re: Another Camera Seized:
>>
>>> I can't speak for Canada, but I would imagine the RCMP would maintain a
>>> symilar system and if booked the photographer would have that encounter
>>> as part of his permanant record.
>>
>> Yes, all police states maintain a similar system.
>
>...and just whereabouts in Alabama is it you live?
Extreme North-West part of the state.
Martin Brown
A bit naive taking the unprocessed film into the local paper. Even 20
years ago you could get under 4 hour C41 processing with proof prints at
many labs (24 hour turnround much cheaper, and 1 hour extortionate).
Always keep hold of your negatives - they are irreplaceable.
I will only take irreplaceable film images to a local lab I know and
trust. I do still use traditional slide film sometimes.
>
> YEAH. RIGHT. Bunch of arseholes - they seriously expected me to believe
> they fucked up the devopment of perfectly ordinary C41 print film?
I doubt it, but what other excuse could they give?
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ron Hunter
You sound like a person I wouldn't want to know. Your
confrontational attitude, and tendency to do really stupid things
(hitting a cop) will likely keep your life very interesting. I hope
that you have learned to be less pugnacious as you have gotten older.
I suspect that in this area, you would still be sitting in prison,
wondering how you got there.
Savageduck
OK. ...and I am on the Central Coast of California. My point is,
neither the US nor Canada are good examples of totalitarian police
states.
I have my personal differences on how some things are implemented and
executed by various departments and agencies. ( espescially Homeland
Security)
Generally in states such as The USA and Canada attitude towards Law
enforcement is based on age, lifestyle, political bias and prior
contact (positive or negative).
So just why is it you believe Canada and the USA are police states?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
> I know if this had happened to me (I also have a heart condition) I'd want
> that thug's balls set in lucite on my desk...
Eeeewwww! Please don't post any photos of such.....
--
john mcwilliams
TonyCooper
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>> The police were wrong in what they did, but let's not re-write the
>> story to make it a stronger case.
>
>Sorry, Tony, I know a few photographers who are also reporters / writers, so
>I tend to treat the two as interchangeable...
Photo-journalists usually work for magazines, wire services, or are
independent and are paid by submission. Some small newspapers expect
their reporters to also be photographers, but this guy was identified
as a photographer for a newspaper.
Before I went into the medical equipment field, I worked for the
Indianapolis Times (now defunct) and the Chicago Tribune. The
newspaper photographers I met (mostly in the Billy Goat Tavern in
Chicago; a hang-out for the newspaper people) confined their writing
to notes on the photgraphs they took.
They all had a tale about some news event where they were the only
newspaper person on the scene, but they phoned in their report of the
facts to the desk, and the desk wrote the story.
Of course, most newspaper reporting was done that way in those days.
Reporters reported. They didn't write the story. They phoned in the
stories or turned in their notes. The copy desk or a sub-editor wrote
the actual verbiage. The Hollywood image of the reporter slaving
away at a typewriter was just that: the Hollywood image. The
reporter might have typed out his notes or the outline of the story,
but the actual item that appeared in print was done by someone else or
heavily edited by someone else.
Newspaper reporters were not necessarily good writers. They were good
in the field, good in securing information, and good at developing
contacts. The best reporters were often good at getting the 5 Ws
(who, what, why, when, where), but not at the 6th: writing. There
were "investigative reporters" who did the whole thing, but most
newspaper copy was written by the copy editors.
(Exceptions to everything, of course. Some newspaper reporters were
excellent writers. The newspapers, though, didn't require this skill
if the other skills were present. The ability to develop contacts and
coax out statements out-weighed the ability to spell and write
grammatical copy.)
Things have changed, though. Newspapers are cutting budgets and
positions. Copy editors are an endangered species.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
[snip my own testimony]
>
> I was tempted to snip a lot out of the message, just to get it
> down to a more manageable size, but you make a number of good
> points which I couldn't bring myself to snip out. So, I'll try
> to lump a few points into each of a couple of responses and hope
> I cover most of the bases...
Thanks for the acknowledgement. It's a pleasant surprise to talk to
someone reasonable instead of the more usual Usenet thing where so
many diss others simply because they don't agree with them.
> First of all, I should clarify that I was not involved in the
> incident, nor am I a professional journalist. I was just
> bringing to the group's attention the breaking news story of a
> reporter in Vancouver, Canada, who had a run-in with some police
> officers while reporting on a police shooting.
Oops! Just fell off the table here, Dudley! Perhaps I should go back
and re-read what you said plus look at earlier posts in this thread
but for now, just color me confused.
If you're neither the person involved nor a jouralist yourself, how
could you have such in depth knowledge of the law and practice on all
of this?
> Now, to illustrate that I try to practice what I preach, I'll
> just relate as briefly as possible an incident which ocurred in
> my younger days:
>
> I was walking down the street, carrying a case of beer with a
> couple of friends. A cruiser full of cops (3) drove by and
> decided to check us out to see if we were of age. In Alberta,
> legal age is 18, and I was about 23 at the time.
>
> The cops asked me for my identification, so I asked them why we
> were being stopped.
In our country, the police have the right and the power to ask for
identification at any time, IF they at least have a probable cause. I
can't judge how old you looked at the time, but perhaps the cops
thought you might be marginal or simply wanted to harass you some.
> The lead officer said it was a routine check to verify that we
> were old enough to be in possession of alcohol. I asked him
> what crime we had committed. He said that it is an offence to
> possess alcohol when under the age of 18, and I might be
> under-aged, so he had to check.
>
> I told him that routine checks weren't good enough, he had to
> have a strong belief that I was under-aged in order to ask for
> ID. He said he just needed to suspect...
>
> I told him I wasn't going to give him any ID, since he didn't
> have any grounds to think we were under-aged, and I turned to
> walk away.
Dudley, of course you need to do what you think is best and right for
you here, but I would NEVER have popped off to the police that way, I
would have said OK and gave them my driver's license as ID to avoid
the very real possibility of actually getting into trouble rather
fast.
> The cop grabbed my wrist to cuff me, but I pulled my arm away
> and spun around, striking the officer on the jaw with as hard a
> blow as I could muster. His head spun to the left, his hat went
> flying, and the scrap was on.
>
> Yes, the three cops took me down, and, yes, they kicked the crap
> out of me in the cellblock, but, things didn't go so good for
> them in court.
You do realize, I hope, that you were guilting of failure to identify
yourself to the police when asked in a lawful manner, resisting
arrest, assault, battery, and maybe some other charges, the
combination of which could put you behind bars for years.
> When I brought it to the judges attention that one of the three
> officers sat next to me in my grade 11 math class and knew how
> old I was, the judge wasn't impressed.
Excuse me for taking you on here, but I'm not surprised. A judge has
no way of judging the veracity of your claim to know the officers and
perhaps hadn't yet had a chance to question them.
> When delivering his verdict, the judge started by saying, "Mr.
> Hanks, I cannot condone people going around and assaulting
> police officers..." So, I thought I was in deep shit. But, his
> next sentence was, Neither can I condone police officers who
> exceed their authority... And, he kicked it out of court.
Again my apologies but I think you were DAMN lucky that the judge
determined that the cops had started by harassing you for no good
reason then had (apparently) used excessive force to restrain you
after you resisted and popped one of them.
> Certainly, I was the target of some rather unrelenting police
> attention, going so far as to be arrested for "tampering with a
> motor vehicle" when I was car shopping after hours on a car lot.
> The cop came up to me while I had the hood of an old Camarro
> up, 15 minutes after the dealership had closed. Sales staff
> were still in the showroom.
Dudley, just so you know, I myself have a rather short fuse and get
angry when provocated pretty easy. But, when it comes to the LEOs, I
turn meek as a lamb and attempt to talk my way out of trouble if at
all possible. I do NOT abandon my Constiutional rights and
protections in some lame attempt to finesse the fuzz but neither do I
flaunt my rights.
There's an interesting aspect of the legal system that is
specifically protected in our Bill of Rights called a writ of habeas
corpus, which means that an accused criminal has a right to be either
charged and allowed to speak to an attorney and petition for bail or
be released without being charged, the idea being to avoid the many
abuses of the Crown during our Colonial Period where citizens would
be arrested and jailed for indeterminate periods without ever being
charged, given a chance for bail or ever be tried.
Still, in modern times, when the cops think they need to, e.g., when
dealing with a member of organized crime, they will intentionally
side step habeas corpus and move a prisoner from precinct to precinct
within the 48 hours allowed by the Amendment. Thus, someone caught in
this web might be jailed for a LONG time and never be charged at all.
But, IF an ordinary citizen who in NO way deserves such treatment
sufficiently pisses off the cops, there have been cases where this
obvious kind of outrageous police abuse happens. Yes, eventually the
prisoner is freed or tried whichever is appropriate and yes, the cops
are suspended and may be charged on a number of counts, the the
hapless fool that was jailed more for being a smart ass than a guilty
felon still suffer for no good reason other than his big mouth.
Make any sense to you?
> But, things have a way of working themselves out. The Crown's
> own witness, the manager of the dealership, said, "No," when I
> asked him if he cared whether people dropped by and popped the
> hoods of cars after hours. He also said that he had personally
> made several sales which had started in that sort of fashion.
> Also, he said that the car had not been damaged. Of course, the
> cop had to admit to the judge that I didn't have any tools on my
> person when I was busted, so any tampering under the hood would
> have been something done with my bare hands.
I've been accosted by dealershi people when attempting only to take
pictures of cars on their lot. I can usually side step a
confrontation by either asking permission in advance or telling a
white lie and saying that I was interested in a car like xxx and
wanted some pictures to look at when I got home. That usually works,
but I have still had kick back.
The issuue here is that there is NO express or implied right under
our First Amendment to take pictures of ANYTHING on private property
if the owner objects, as one did quite vocally. So, I would expect to
get into MAJOR trouble and likely be arrested for trespassing and
possibly vandalism for popping hoods after hours. A properly trained
cop would likely let you off with a stern warning if you acted
reasonably but I am aware of plenty of cases, some perhaps involving
racial profiling which also still exists, that people get into FAR
more trouble than it is worth to just snap a couple of pictures after
a dealer closes.
One more time, please excuse me for acting judgmental, but has anyone
ever suggested to you that perhaps you have a chip on your shoulder
and invite trouble with the police, and perhaps have been more than a
little lucky in not having a criminal record by now?
> Another case punted by another judge.
>
> If you go back far enough in Canadian legal history, these files
> will still be on record, I believe, as will a few others.
>
> Of course, everything didn't go my way. I was also busted for
> "threatening to kill" the brother of one of the officers. His
> word against mine. I could have fought it, but, the charge was
> "verbal assault," and the fine was $500, so I pleaded guilty and
> went back to work.
In the United States, assault can be as little as simply getting too
close to someone who believes they are being threatened, but
certainly even an allegation of threatening bodily harm or murder is
damn likely to get the attention of the LEOs as well as at least your
being required to go to a local hospital, have your blood drawn for a
toxic substances scan, and be forced to see a psychologist. And, it
would not be out of line in my view for the investigating officer to
ask you to be checked for blood alcohol level.
In the modern world of extreme crime and the now ever present threat
of terrorism, we must live with sometimes severe limitations to our
freedoms and rights, so I would likely have done exactly what you did
as everything might have gone down hill for you even if it was a his
word vs yours thing.
> Neither that conviction, nor any residual record of the other
> incidents has ever come back to haunt me. But, I have to say
> the reputation I gained at the time probably kept me out of more
> bar fights than you can shake a stick at...
I don't own a handgun, much less with a CCW license, but there MAY
come a time that I do want to purchase one for personal protection or
sporting use and it is conceivable that I might want to conceal the
weapon when traveling into known seedy areas of town. The easy
charges you have on your record MAY be enought to stop me from
getting a license to purchase a handgun but would almost certainly
prevent me from obtaining a CCW since it is common to restrict all
former crimianals. I don't know the exact severity of your
"convictions", but here, a convicted felon is specifically denied the
right to purchase ANY king of firearm, a stance in the law that has
been upheld many times including just last month by our Supreme
Court.
Other highly likely consequences that MAY affect one's personal life
is if a potential employer spots a criminal record and chooses not to
hire you, a credit bureau or auto insurance company believes that you
are somehow a greater risk, and similar things can and do happen to
otherwise law abiding citizens. So, it is my firm belief that while I
don't like to be hassled, I also don't want to suffer some loss 20 or
more years from what may have been only the foolish act of a youth.
> So, yes, you'll have to deal with the ramifications of what you
> do, but those ramifications aren't always as severe as people,
> including the cops, would want you to believe.
>
> In such incidents, it can boil down to a sophisticated game of
> chicken. With the cops over-inflating the repercussions of not
> complying with their demands, and the individual placing too
> much reliance on his / her supposed rights.
Yes, but the cops are much better able to avoid "blinking" and in
general, they hold all the cards.
> And, of course, you are spot on when you say that a mixture of
> meek and firm are a good rule of thumb to follow. My point is
> that every now and then somebody needs to put his / her neck on
> the line to keep the system accountable.
Oh, I agree with your last, but I'm sorry to say, I do NOT agree with
the specific examples you cited. I am happy that you survived
unscathed, but I have a different view. Thankfully, I've neither had
to forcefully assert my rights nor to turn into Marvin Milktoast.
But, one occasion that could easily of gone badly does come to mind:
Decades ago, I was dating a young woman and we looked for a deserted
street at night to neck. Unknown to me, the street I picked was the
entrance to a housing subdivision that was still under construction
and was being protected by rent-a-cops. One came buy, questioned me
and girl, didn't believe us, and called the LEOs. Of course, he had
my license number although he did not ask for ID. So, I decided to
wait the half hour or so for a patrol car to arrive.He DID check my
ID, called in my licence, checked for a stolen car and for priors and
warrents on me, and then let me go. Now, you may think I was abused
but in my opinion at the time, I was in NO position to make a strong
case right then. Suppose, for example, that somebody else had trashed
one of the houses that same night. Who do you supposed would have
been charged?
> Since that time, I have studied political science in general,
> and have taken specific courses in Constitutional Politics,
> studying both your American and our Canadian Constitutions, not
> to mention the British unwritten constitutional tradition. I am
> by no means an expert in the field, but I know enough to agree
> with you that people tend to think they have more rights than
> they can in fact lay claim to.
I am a similar student of Constitutional law, but as I said earlier,
in NO way does that give me the tools I need to investigate the
literally hundreds of thousands of court rulings and precedents in
our rich case law history, nor does a brief class give me the legal
skills to even understand what I was reading if I could find it.
Here's the deal: contrary to what most people think, lawyers are NOT
interested in justice or right and wrong, they are interested only in
earning a fee. Since laws are written by lawyers for other lawyers,
it should not be a surprise that most/all laws are incomprehensible
to laymen. Worse, lawyers deal in nuance and in complicating issues
that favor their clients, and NEVER in simplifying things. So, one
more time, I applaud your gumption in standing up for your rights,
but personally, I wouldn't presume to know even a fraction of what I
should in order to do this reliably.
> For me, the bottom line in this case is that the journalist was
> doing his job, and the cops got carried away, probably because
> of a couple of high profile videos that proved a couple of
> officers weren't being entirely truthful under oath.
Can't comment, didn't read the specifics, but again in the US, the
press simply does NOT have unfettered access to whatever they please
nor do they have the right to withold sources of stories. Far too
many state and federal appellate court decisions say that an
Amendment that says only "Congress shall make no law respecting ...
freedom of the press" no more allows journalists to flaunt the law
and the rights of others any more than the "free speech" provision
allows one to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
> In this case, though, the reporter got there late, took a few
> pics of a truck with its window shot out and the perp lying on
> the ground, bleeding, and they didn't want anyone coming back to
> question their takedown. From the sound of things, they
> needen't have worried (although, I wasn't there, maybe they
> did...) They should be professional enough to let other
> professionals do their work.
>
> I'm not sure if I've addressed all of your concerns with this
> rather lengthy response, but I hope I have. If not, perhaps we
> can break it up into smaller chunks for further elaboration...
>
I appreciate the time you've spent on this, Dudley. It isn't so much
whether you did or didn't address my concerns, but perhaps it is more
that you and I have rather different views of this, complicated by
what are likely to be considerable differences in the law in our
respective countries.
Whatever, I wish you a nice afternoon and a pleasant week and thanks
for your insights and observations.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker
jls
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>With a cop it might be "Oh, more evidence. I'll have that too, thank you."
>
>If it's really an issue of evidence (as opposed to using "evidence" as an
>excuse to bully you) then the police letting you leave the scene with the
>camera breaks the chain of custody, which may mean that a criminal walks.
>"No, I'm not going to give you the camera unless you take it from me by
>force, but I'll be happy to let one of your forensics people copy the images
>either here or down at the station" resolves that issue at the cost of your
>time. Now, if there is something else on the card that might incriminate
>you or that might lead police to a source to whom you have promised
>anyonymity or some such then I can see where you might resist this. But
>witholding real evidence in a criminal case when you are not being harmed in
>any way other than petty annoyance by providing it, even if it's lawful for
>you to withhold it, seems to me to be putting your rights before the good of
>the community.
>
I have to say that I am distressed at how little value some people are
placing on our liberties and rights.
Nothing in the constitution is designed to guarantee that someone is
properly punished by the justice system. Instead, it is designed to
tie the hands of the government enough so that it cannot become a
tyranny. Unfortunately too many "living document" proponents are
either ignorant of, or just don't care about the constitution.
Yes, one implication of this is that criminals will sometimes go free,
but the alternative is that the government basically has all the
rights and the people really have one - something which is completely
contrary to why this country was formed the way it was.
jls
>
>Until civilians, including reporters understand that officers dealing
>directly with an incident have a hyper-focus on the incident and are
>doing a job isolating, containing and controlling the incident.
>Elements which appear to them to hinder that process have to be dealt
>with. Arguing with a reporter or other civilian is hindering or
>obstructing the officer from doing what he/she needs to do in the
>moment.
>In this case it was not taking photographs in a station, it was a
>shooting incident which has serious implications.
>
On the contrary, until law enforcement - and government in general -
understand that they cannot infringe on the rights of the people
without cause and due process.
While I am actually very sensitive to the nature of the job of law
enforcement officers and the difficult conditions under which they
often work, it is important that we as citizens also do not let them
believe that they have carte blanche to perform their duties.
Protecting ourselves from the unwarranted action of government is one
of our responsibilities in this constitutional republic.
Considering that there were other options besides confiscating the
equipment and/or arresting the photographer, imho they should be made
aware of these other options - perhaps painfully aware if need be.
TonyCooper
>
>I have to say that I am distressed at how little value some people are
>placing on our liberties and rights.
I am also distressed at how little value some people place on common
decency and the feelings of others.
Much is discussed in this forum on the rights of the photographer, but
little is discussed on the wrongs of the photographer. Not the
professional photographer who is employed to capture news, but the
citizen who carries a camera and feels he has the right to capture
anything he sees.
Drive by a bad wreck sometime and you will see some bozo with a camera
photographing the scene and the people in it. If I'm a victim in an
accident, I don't want that guy photographing me lying there in a pool
of blood. Whether I'm in a public or private place, I don't feel he
has a right to gawk and photograph. If he isn't there to help, he
should get the hell away.
Same with a slip-and-fall accident. It's one thing to take a
photograph in order to provide the victim with some documentation of
the conditions, but quite different if the photograph goes up on
Flickr as a "funny" image of someone ass-over-teakettle in an awkward
and embarassing position.
I like "street photography" and I do it. But, if anyone sees me
taking a picture of them and objects to me doing so, I'll delete the
image in a heartbeat. I don't feel I have a right not to.
Savageduck
The thing to remember is, each circumstance and the interaction between
those involved is different.
For the most part during my 25 year career in Law enforcement I have
found the press/media and the public to be cooperative during an
incident. I have never had, cause to confront on scene witnesses
aggressively. If they are encroaching on a crime scene, a simple
request to move back normally sufficed and we could deal with whatever
we had to. Photographers could carry on shooting and by-standers could
carry on eye-balling.
We were able to develop a good working relationship with the press.
Unfortunately there are those in both camps who push the rational
envelope and who use arguments ranging from preserving evidence to
preserving First Amendment Rights to justify their actions.
Officer involved shootings are a sensitive issue for the officers on
scene and they may not be thinking as they should if they are being
protective of a brother officer(s). An on scene supervisor would
normally get the involved officer(s) away from the scene and advise
them of their rights under POBAR (Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, the
cop's Miranda) as there will be a shooting review and there is always
the possibility of adverse action being taken against the officer(s) up
to the level of criminal prosecution. This is what happened with the
recent BART shooting in Oakland. That officer is currently facing
murder charges.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dudley Hanks
The reason why I posted this one in the first place is that the reported
facts seem at odds with the outcome...
If the photog got there after the fact, identified himself as a working
media person, was no closer than other non-officers, had 16 years of
experience and wasn't getting in the way, it seems odd that the cops would
want to take his camera. It's extra work at an already busy crime scene.
Even if the officers were inexperienced or over zealous, it seems strange
they would want to take a camera that had little chance of either containing
evidence or incriminating shots.
Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I kind of wonder if the photog didn't wander right
through the middle of the crime scene before getting to the point where he
was confronted, on the periphery.
Perhaps we'll never know...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"jls" <notv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36kpt41b2ab020277...@4ax.com...
That's it in a nutshell; constitutions are drafted to codify governmental
authority.
Criminal codes and other governmental legislation tend to more explicitly
spell out what Mr. Average Joe can or cannot do.
Problems occur when people interpret and apply each with respect to the
other...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
For me, I've always been connected to newspapers via the freelance route.
Writing is the basic skill, and many, if not most, of the freelance writers
I know do their own photography -- especially since auto-everything cameras
have become the norm.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Perhaps a quick refresher on the practices of Stalinist Russia, Hitler's
Germany or Saddam's Iraq might clarify our good fortune a bit ...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:qeydnWaEW_WpwEHU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
> Dudley,
> You sound like a person I wouldn't want to know. Your confrontational
> attitude, and tendency to do really stupid things (hitting a cop) will
> likely keep your life very interesting. I hope that you have learned to
> be less pugnacious as you have gotten older.
> I suspect that in this area, you would still be sitting in prison,
> wondering how you got there.
Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to keep in mind
that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a condition that would
result in a slow, permanent, and complete loss of vision. I was highly
graphical, and had been taking pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the
age of 18. How many 18 year old photographers do you know who were allowed
backstage to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton, Eddie
Money, Heart, etc...??
Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision without
having an accident.
At the age of 22, my vision deteriorated to the point of no-return, and I
had to give up my license, and I went into a rather hazy stage of drug and
alcohol use in order to cope with the depression. There were a few rather
fuzzy years about that time, and I didn't pull out of it until I met my
wife-to-be at around 28, which is when I started getting my life back on
track.
Did I have a "chip on my shoulder," as has been suggested? Yeah, probably,
but I think most psychologists would think that normal for the
circumstances.
Did I rather tenaciously pursue my rights, more so than Mr. or Ms. Average
Joe(sephine)? Probably, and I still do because able-bodied people
continually trample them. A right is only a right when it is granted by
others, or defended by the claiming party. Hence, I have learned that, if I
want to pursue happiness, as most North Americans like to do, I sometimes
have to beat my way through a rather callused crowd. I think you will find
this sentiment rather wide-spread in any disabled community -- especially
when dealing with the more highly motivated members of those communities.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Because I think these are the countries that most take their rights for
granted...
Take Care,
Dudley
Matt Ion
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:QYmdndFjIpoQ10bU...@posted.plusnet...
>> http://www.theprovince.com/news/Statement+from+Province+photographer+Jason+Payne/1470754/story.html
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Linked Info:
> http://www.theprovince.com/news/Cops+shoot+East+Vancouver+then+confiscate+Province+camera/1467479/story.html
And the latest, from today's paper:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Police+chief+apologizes+after+Province+photographer+camera+seized/1475244/story.html
"VANCOUVER — Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu apologized Tuesday for the
seizure of a Province photographer’s camera as he took pictures at the
scene of a police shooting Sunday.
“I want to apologize for this unfortunate incident and assure you that
we are taking steps to ensure such an incident doesn’t happen again,”
Chu wrote in a letter to Province editor-in-chief Wayne Moriarty."
Martin Brown
> In message <itee9KP3...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
> <ch...@phaedsys.org> writes
>> In message <2cPCl.11174$%k2....@newsfe07.iad>, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> Chris H wrote:
>>
>>> The police may want to secure the evidence chain in case there are
>>> important images on the camera.
>>
>> True. On the other hand they may want them so there are no awkward
>> photos in the press. In the case in this thread they had shot at some
>> one.
Yes. OTOH he seemed to have been a real threat from the other
descriptions of the events leading up to the shooting.
>>> Digital images are much easier to fake than classical film so there
>>> is good reason for them to want to keep them closely watched until
>>> they are sure there is no important evidence on them.
>>
>> That is one reason there are others for the more cynical.
>
> And right on cue from the UK counter terrorist NG
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7988828.stm
>
> A man who died during the G20 protest was pushed to the ground by a
> police officer, video footage has shown.
>
> Ian Tomlinson, 47, collapsed from a heart attack during protests outside
> the Bank of England last Wednesday.
>
> Newsagent Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, is seen receiving a
> two-handed push from a police officer.
And according to the slow motion replay a whack from a baton to the back
of his legs too. UK policing by consent seems to be disappearing. They
should be had for that unprovoked attack on an innocent bystander trying
to make his way home. The video of this assault should obtain justice
for him with any luck.
>
> A New York fund manager recorded the footage, saying he came forward
> with the video because Mr Tomlinson's family "were not getting any
> answers".
>
> No wonder the police don't like to be filmed!
I think todays MFU tops that. The UK's police anti-terrorism supremo
photographed carrying a secret document into Downing Street with names
and other key threat details clearly legible. It is hard to imagine how
we are made safer by having someone as careless as that in charge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7990719.stm
It isn't the first time a visitor to No 10 has had documents captured by
a long lens. And it is one thing for a hapless minister to be caught
out, but quite another for a supposedly highly trained anti-terrorist
officer. Clueless is as clueless does. Accident prone is the kindest
thing that any of the major political parties has said about him so far.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Paul Bartram
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
> I think todays MFU tops that. The UK's police anti-terrorism supremo
> photographed carrying a secret document into Downing Street with names and
> other key threat details clearly legible. It is hard to imagine how we are
> made safer by having someone as careless as that in charge.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7990719.stm
Silly man, no bonus for you this year.
OK, hands up all those that followed the link, saved the photo to disk and
tried to manipulate it in an editor to read what was on the paper! Damn near
works, too..
And how about this line from the article:
"Students said they heard police shouting at two suspects as they were
advised over the library loudspeaker to stay away from the windows for their
own safety."
Amazing the building didn't tilt!
Paul
Paul Bartram
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote
> I like the WiFi idea because you can transmit the pictures back to a
> laptop a friend has set up in a cafe. That will be difficult to spot as
> most cafes are full of people using laptops... at least in UK cites they
> are.
Which also raises the question of mobile phone cameras - increasingly used
by bystanders to snap 'happening' news. While the picture would exist on the
phone SIM card, it could also be transmitted anywhere in the world before
the instrument could be seized.
Technology is making damage control harder to achieve...
Paul
Martin Brown
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> I think todays MFU tops that. The UK's police anti-terrorism supremo
>> photographed carrying a secret document into Downing Street with names and
>> other key threat details clearly legible. It is hard to imagine how we are
>> made safer by having someone as careless as that in charge.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7990719.stm
>
> Silly man, no bonus for you this year.
Very possibly no job either. It will be extremely annoying if they have
arrested the alleged terrorist cell too soon to get a conviction.
>
> OK, hands up all those that followed the link, saved the photo to disk and
> tried to manipulate it in an editor to read what was on the paper! Damn near
> works, too..
Not enough resolution in that small single frame image.
But given a full sequence of the doctored images I reckon I might be
able to reconstruct it from the TV broadcast video stream given enough
processing power and time. However, there is a D-notice in force.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bob Larter
> And the latest, from today's paper:
> http://www.theprovince.com/news/Police+chief+apologizes+after+Province+photographer+camera+seized/1475244/story.html
> seizure of a Province photographer�s camera as he took pictures at the
>
> we are taking steps to ensure such an incident doesn�t happen again,�
Good to hear.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
whisky-dave
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:grfkh...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:49dae15b$0$21741$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>>>
>>> "Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your
>>>> hands off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the
>>>> point.
>>>
>>> In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind
>>> is, why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the
>>> images are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?
Some cameras have inbuilt memory storage.
> The cops have the right to ask for evidence.
Cops in plural rather than just the individual that's an important point.
> If you're a reasonable person then you should be willing to provide it,
> after all, somebody is _dead_ and the person responsible needs to be
> brought to justice.
Suppose it's the cop that caused or did the actual murder.
>That being the case,
> anything that you can do to help the investigation is worthwhile. Don't
> get so caught up in defending your rights that you lose sight of the big
> picture.
yes in that lots of peole should have acces to the evidence picture in this
case.
> If you absolutely positively don't want to give up control of the images,
> then tell the cop that you're perfectly willing to let the department make
> a copy as long as you don't give up control, and if he's not sure of the
> procedure for that then ask him to call his supervisor. They should
> either be able to make a copy on scene or at the station.
Porbbaly the best idea, do the laws of copyright change if you've
photographed
an illegal act taking place.
> Remember also that they have a responsibility to maintain the chain of
> evidence--that means that the images have to be under their control from
> the time they became aware of them on--that means that if they don't have
> the camera in their possession then they need to have you with the camera
> in their possession until the copies are made.
Seems reasonable, in that case that should insist that you hand the images
over
to any individual obviously that's not a law just a precaution.
> As a working journalist you also have a responsibility to maintain control
> of _your_ chain of evidence--put it in those terms and any cop should be
> able to understand the problem.
>
> Also note that what the cops can and cannot seize depends on the
> applicable statutes which vary from state to state and outside the US from
> country to country.
There'as an interesting situation in London during G20 where a 48 year-old
man was pushed to the ground by a policeman and has since died.
What I can't understand is where all the CCTV footage is considering how
many cameras are about.
Now just suppose you had a picture(s) of this incident would you have to
had over the images to the policeman or should you wait until there is an
authoritive
figure on the scene who'll distribute those picture(s) to everyone that
wants/needs them.
>
>
whisky-dave
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:33:19 -0400, jls <notv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I have to say that I am distressed at how little value some people are
>>placing on our liberties and rights.
>
> I am also distressed at how little value some people place on common
> decency and the feelings of others.
>
> Much is discussed in this forum on the rights of the photographer,
Must be something related to the name of the group :)
but
> little is discussed on the wrongs of the photographer. Not the
> professional photographer who is employed to capture news,
So they can do no wrong ?
> but the
> citizen who carries a camera and feels he has the right to capture
> anything he sees.
For me that would depend on why I shouldn;t have the right to photograph
what I see.
> Drive by a bad wreck sometime and you will see some bozo with a camera
> photographing the scene and the people in it.
Here in the UK I often see billboards from the police asking for witnesses
to an accident.
> If I'm a victim in an
> accident, I don't want that guy photographing me lying there in a pool
> of blood. Whether I'm in a public or private place, I don't feel he
> has a right to gawk and photograph. If he isn't there to help, he
> should get the hell away.
I guess I agree, but if the pictures can be used as evidence that you
weren't
responsible for the accident or they can be used as proof to back up
an insurance claim, would it be OK if it were a professional photographer
but
not an amateur one.
> Same with a slip-and-fall accident. It's one thing to take a
> photograph in order to provide the victim with some documentation of
> the conditions, but quite different if the photograph goes up on
> Flickr as a "funny" image of someone ass-over-teakettle in an awkward
> and embarassing position.
Even worse if they send it off and make some money out of it. ;)
> I like "street photography" and I do it. But, if anyone sees me
> taking a picture of them and objects to me doing so, I'll delete the
> image in a heartbeat. I don't feel I have a right not to.
Normally I'd agree but if that person was breaking and entering, or doing
something
else that's I thought they shouldn't I would disagree.
Chris H
<whisk...@final.front.ear> writes
>There'as an interesting situation in London during G20 where a 48 year-old
>man was pushed to the ground by a policeman and has since died.
>What I can't understand is where all the CCTV footage is considering how
>many cameras are about.
Now that crossed my mind. As the event took place at an intersection in
an open area there must have been several cameras not to mention
building Security CCTV and other people who captured it.
> Now just suppose you had a picture(s) of this incident would you have to
>had over the images to the policeman or should you wait until there is an
>authoritive
>figure on the scene who'll distribute those picture(s) to everyone that
>wants/needs them.
When you say "everyone who wants/need them" does that include competing
newspapers, TV and magazines etc...
No. You back up the photos to the lap top or storage device. Many press
people have the laptop in the car/bag or a mobile storage device and
only give the pictures ot the Police for a receipt. As evidence
Many people trip, fall or are pushed (either by accident or intent by
their own side or the ether side) many times in a demonstration so not
all incidents are photographed and no one at the time realised the
significance of the incident. He got up and walked off.
BTW what is significant the, to my mind, somewhat stunned reaction of
the officers colleagues. I think they thought he had overstepped the
mark.
Chris H
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
> However, there is a D-notice in force.
Really? Do you know that for a fact?
I thought that system had long since got to be replaced by something
less formal.
J. Clarke
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> I think todays MFU tops that. The UK's police anti-terrorism supremo
>> photographed carrying a secret document into Downing Street with
>> names and other key threat details clearly legible. It is hard to
>> imagine how we are made safer by having someone as careless as that
>> in charge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7990719.stm
>
> Silly man, no bonus for you this year.
What's with his handlers or whoever provided his security briefing? I was
taught that anything classified hat is being carried outside of a secure
area should be double wrapped in an opaque material.
David J Taylor
[]
> What's with his handlers or whoever provided his security briefing?
> I was taught that anything classified hat is being carried outside of
> a secure area should be double wrapped in an opaque material.
Quite. He's now quit the job.
David
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to
> keep in mind that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a
> condition that would result in a slow, permanent, and complete
> loss of vision. I was highly graphical, and had been taking
> pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the age of 18. How many
> 18 year old photographers do you know who were allowed backstage
> to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton,
> Eddie Money, Heart, etc...??
Sorry to hear that. Retinitis pigmentosa, I assume? I know a couple
of unlucky fellows that were eventually totally blinded by this
insidious disease.
> Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision
> without having an accident.
Excuse me, but what the Hell were you doing street racing with only
a 10% cone of vision?! Besides risking your own life, you might
have killed your opponent or innocent bystanders.
>
> At the age of 22, my vision deteriorated to the point of
> no-return, and I had to give up my license, and I went into a
> rather hazy stage of drug and alcohol use in order to cope with
> the depression.
Yeah, booze and drugs always help - to fry one's brain permanently.
There were a few rather fuzzy years about that
> time, and I didn't pull out of it until I met my wife-to-be at
> around 28, which is when I started getting my life back on
> track.
>
> Did I have a "chip on my shoulder," as has been suggested?
> Yeah, probably, but I think most psychologists would think that
> normal for the circumstances.
Yeah you did, still have, but no, shrinks would most certainly NOT
give you a pass. I understand debilitating diseases, having a few
nasty conditions myself, but that just isn't a reason to be
reckless nor to take on the cops and take such a deep dive into
alcoholism and drugs that you don't even remember a number of years
of your life. I sincerly hope that you obtained both rehab to get
off the junk and professional help to deal with your problems in a
way less dangerous to yourself and others.
> Did I rather tenaciously pursue my rights, more so than Mr. or
> Ms. Average Joe(sephine)? Probably, and I still do because
> able-bodied people continually trample them. A right is only a
> right when it is granted by others, or defended by the claiming
> party. Hence, I have learned that, if I want to pursue
> happiness, as most North Americans like to do, I sometimes have
> to beat my way through a rather callused crowd. I think you
> will find this sentiment rather wide-spread in any disabled
> community -- especially when dealing with the more highly
> motivated members of those communities.
>
> Take Care,
No, you really didn't defend you rights. You vastly exceeded your
rights and freedoms and thus gave up most of the protections
allowed by your laws. Honestly, I've been courteous to you but what
you have described should have landed you in jail for most of your
life. You just can't go around whacking cops, pushing your way onto
potential crime scens, street racing without adequate vision,
possibly in a drug or booze haze, and a number of other things
you've bragged about. My hope for you is that you've intentionally
over dramatized your exploits to look cool and really didn't do
that crap.
Martin Brown
> In message <6liDl.19783$%e2.1...@newsfe24.iad>, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>> However, there is a D-notice in force.
>
> Really? Do you know that for a fact?
ISTR they used those exact words on the BBC 10pm news last night.
> I thought that system had long since got to be replaced by something
> less formal.
I think they were *very* annoyed yesterday and wanted to be absolutely
certain of enforcing the no show ban on the unwelcome pictures.
I just hope that having the operation go off at half cock doesn't
completely screw up all chance of obtaining a conviction. Or worse still
result in some innocent harmless individuals being snatched at gun
point, locked up for 28 days and then released without charge.
Regards,
Martin Brown
whisky-dave
> In message <grklcd$g8b$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear>
> writes
>>There'as an interesting situation in London during G20 where a 48 year-old
>>man was pushed to the ground by a policeman and has since died.
>>What I can't understand is where all the CCTV footage is considering how
>>many cameras are about.
>
> Now that crossed my mind. As the event took place at an intersection in an
> open area there must have been several cameras not to mention building
> Security CCTV and other people who captured it.
>
>> Now just suppose you had a picture(s) of this incident would you have to
>>had over the images to the policeman or should you wait until there is an
>>authoritive
>>figure on the scene who'll distribute those picture(s) to everyone that
>>wants/needs them.
>
> When you say "everyone who wants/need them" does that include competing
> newspapers, TV and magazines etc...
Can't see why not, but the idea would be not to discriminate between them.
i.e the scum, the smirror, and the shit of the world, if they all have them
then no one
will be making obscene profits from having an exclusive.
> No. You back up the photos to the lap top or storage device.
You gotta get home first.
I was thinking that mr Plod sees you taking a picture and then telling you,
you have to surrender your camera to him.
>Many press
> people have the laptop in the car/bag or a mobile storage device and only
> give the pictures ot the Police for a receipt. As evidence
That would be the best option, and making a copy first of course.
If you take a picture of say mr Plod kicking someone and then you give the
picture
up, what evidence is that once the original has been handed over.
One resson for handing duplicates over to many people.
> Many people trip, fall or are pushed (either by accident or intent by
> their own side or the ether side) many times in a demonstration so not all
> incidents are photographed and no one at the time realised the
> significance of the incident. He got up and walked off.
It is a strange one, but then people get up from car accidents, in this
instance pictures
could prove either innocence or guilt, we've always been told that about DNA
evidence, must be the same for photographic evidence too.
> BTW what is significant the, to my mind, somewhat stunned reaction of the
> officers colleagues. I think they thought he had overstepped the mark.
I guess we've all overstepped the mark whether it be shouting at kids or the
cat for
getting under our feet, or the misses for talking while star trek is on.
As with all assults it's down to what can be seen as intent.
Was the push/punch etc.. done in such a way that serious injury could be
caused,
or was it just a shove, like you'd do to say go home to a drunk hassling
you.for beer money.
Either way any evidence, photographic or not should not be given to just one
'side'
Savageduck
The cop in this case was an ass. The victim had his hands in his
pockets and hd no way to protect himself in his fall. There was no
provocation on his part.
The presumption is that the shove precipitated the unfortunate death.
We have no knowledge of his health issues, or other injuries he might
have sustained in the fall. People do have health crises when on the
way home from work, and sometimes the die without a cop anywhere near.
Even seemingly benign falls can have tragic consequences, just look to
Natasha Richardson.
That said that cop remains an ass. I also found it interesting that all
the police in that clip had their faces covered.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> saying something like:
>> Turned out they'd botched the processing...
>
>A bit naive taking the unprocessed film into the local paper. Even 20
>years ago you could get under 4 hour C41 processing with proof prints at
>many labs (24 hour turnround much cheaper, and 1 hour extortionate).
>Always keep hold of your negatives - they are irreplaceable.
Oddly, since I had dealings with the local rag for years, and actually
knew a couple of staffers, I had an element of trust in them to do the
right thing. Turned out the right thing for them was to lose the pics.
Never again. I since learned, from other encounters, that local rags are
often staffed with people who are trying to keep in with local politicos
and police.
Dudley Hanks
Having been in the middle of a number of Oilers Cup celebrations, years
back, I can vouch that more shoving happens because of civillians than from
cops.
I remember one time, I had my guitar out and was busking on a popular strip
since the money was good during a cup run. The game finished; the Oilers
won, and everyone was in a jubilant mood. Great situation for a blind
busker, right?
Well, not really, I was slugged by one fan passing by, and another berated
me because I needed a dog to follow around...
There was also a couple of thuggish sounding blokes who offered to help me
(and my guitar) get off the busy street by heading down a side alley. I
liked my chance in the throng a lot better.
It takes all kinds to make the world spin round and round...
The cops in those situations did their best to look out for me, which was
more than I can say for the "average" Joe.
Take Care,
Dudley
jls
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:33:19 -0400, jls <notv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I have to say that I am distressed at how little value some people are
>>placing on our liberties and rights.
>
>I am also distressed at how little value some people place on common
>decency and the feelings of others.
>
While I may agree with you, I would stop at the point where some
others feel that legislative action is a valid response.
The old adages are that you can't legislate decency, morality, or
common sense.
jls
wrote:
>
>Officer involved shootings are a sensitive issue for the officers on
>scene and they may not be thinking as they should if they are being
>protective of a brother officer(s). An on scene supervisor would
>normally get the involved officer(s) away from the scene and advise
>them of their rights under POBAR (Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, the
>cop's Miranda) as there will be a shooting review and there is always
>the possibility of adverse action being taken against the officer(s) up
>to the level of criminal prosecution. This is what happened with the
>recent BART shooting in Oakland. That officer is currently facing
>murder charges.
Not knowing anything about the case you reference, I am loathe to
consider any shooting by an officer to be 'murder'. Just from
personal perspective, having some appreciation for the extreme
circumstances under which officers often find themselves, it is a
dangerous thing to expect perfection from them.
For me it wouild have to be a pretty extreme circumstance, involving
at the least a complete negligence in disregard for others, and/or
some form of abuse of power, for me to ever consider this a reasonable
action. Yes, "we the people" do need to make sure we are protected
from abuse and tyranny from our government "agents", but we also need
to make sure they have enough freedom to act in our interests as well.
Dudley Hanks
"HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BE870B9EB8...@216.168.3.30...
Jerry, who said anything about "street" racing? I raced on the track, and I
did it sober. I lined my Mustang up against stripped out Camarros, rail
dragsters, and anything else that I could. Ever heard of bracket racing?
Completely legal, on a strip, and I hassled "street" racers I knew, telling
them that if they wanted to prove their rides were fast, produce a time
slip, it's much more impressive. The other drivers knew there were risks,
as much from "normal" drivers, equipment malfunctions and track conditions
as from a driver with poor vision. A friend of mine died on the same track
as I raced because he took a corner wide and ran into a dead machine parked
there, waiting for a toe...
Moreover, I had a VALID driver's licence at the time. You may not know
that, most places in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, a licence can be obtained
by anyone who is not legally blind; that means there are MILLIONS of
drivers out there who only have 10% of normal vision, and they are doing it
legally.
Nobody took my licence away. I gave it up, voluntarily, when I felt I could
no longer conduct my vehicle safely because I didn't want to endanger
others.
I consider myself mildly right on the political / social scale because I
find that the farther right one goes, the more people talk about rights, but
they are only concerned about their own. Everybody else is wrong, and they
need to be converted, or eliminated. Your attitude exhibits this phenomena
quite nicely, Jerry.
Regarding the assault incident, I'll take the judges words over yours as to
whether or not I was defending my rights.
In his judgement, he noted that, since I stood six foot four, had rugged
features, and had a heavy growth of beard at the time of the incident, there
was no way I should have been mistaken for being under the age of 18. In
fact, sitting there in the courtroom, squeaky clean and in my most civil
looking clothes, clean shaven, the judge himself couldn't picture me as an
under-aged person.
The judge noted that the cops "did not have any right to stop me," and that
by taking hold of me to prevent me from leaving, I had been in fact "placed
under arrest." Since the arrest was not warranted, i "had every right to
resist."
Please note, the Crown never appealed the verdict, so it was not erroneous.
And, if my actions were in error, do you not think the Crown would have gone
to great lengths to prove that average Joe's shouldn't go around "popping"
cops?
Maybe I'm not a constitutional scholar, but isn't it amazing how I based my
actions on the same criteria the judge later based his judgement on? And, I
was only 23?? Maybe, Jerry, you underestimate how much a person can learn
on their own. Members of the religious right like to feign ignorance,
stating that we are all idiots and only God has a usable intellect. I, on
the other hand, believe that the human intellectual capacity is vastly
underated, and underutilized. Just because I don't have credentials in a
given area doesn't mean I can't think rationally and logically and make an
intelligent decision -- even if others think I'm crazy at the time...
If you want to read his judgement, the trial took place in the Leduc
Provincial Court, around 1982 or '83.
So, Jerry, like I said, I'll take the judges verdict, not yours.
Also, (falling to your level) unless you are a qualified psychologist, I
doubt you have any authority to judge how people react to disabling
conditions. After sustaining such "permanent" frying, how many people do
you know who have come out of the haze with an IQ of 150? (If you want to
make a fortune on a gravity powered engine, I have an idea, but it'll cost
you...)
Indeed, I have not over dramatized to impress, if anything, I have
understated to maintain some semblance of credibility. There was also the
time I loaded a shotgun in front of this jerk who wanted to kick my head in
because a passenger in my car had given him the finger as we were driving
down the street. The kid was 12, and I was giving him a ride home to help
out his sister, who was a friend of mine.
The jerk on the other end of my shotgun barrel was a known gang member, and
fairly expert in the martial arts, but he didn't like facing a spray of
birdseed, so I never heard anything from him again.
Another example of rash behaviour? Well, first, you should know that I
contacted the cops about this situation, and was told to take the guy out to
a secluded spot and duke it out. If the cops got any report of a
disturbance, they'd be slow to respond, to give me time to tune him in -- or
to get my ass kicked by him and his buddies. Doing it my way, nobody got
hurt, and the problem ended then and there.
Yes, I have done some "crazy" things in my life, but the reoccuring
important factor is that nobody got hurt in all the insanity surrounding my
loss of vision. There was plenty of opportunity for people to get hurt, but
nobody did.
And, that extends to others, as well. I remember a time (I said thinggs got
fuzzy, I didn't say I can't remember them, so quit adding your spin to my
words) when I had done some LSD, along with some others. We were travelling
in a car (about six of us, three in the front and three in the back).
Another guy with RP was high in the back; I was in the front. While
tripping, this guy decides he can't take it any more and opens the back door
to jump out at highway speed.
I turned around, grabbed him by his belt, and dragged him back before he
could hit the pavement. Then, while holding him down with one hand
(remember, I stand 6' 4" and lifted weights back then), I closed the door
with my free hand. Once the door was closed and locked, I picked him up and
told the guy in the center to slip around to the door. Then I plopped the
guy freaking out in between the other two, where he couldn't hurt himself.
He's still alive, today.
Had I not been there, he would have been toast. I'm sure some of your
ultra-right tight shirts are crossing themselves right now and muttering,
"Indeed, God does work in mysterious ways." Or, maybe they are just
muttering that I was responsible for keeping another welfare bum on the
payroll... Probably more zealots saying the latter than the former.
But, I digress...
The basis of this thread was maintaining / defending ones rights, and I
think my assault incident illustrates quite vividly that, every now and
then, someone has to exert their rights in order to defend them. Yes, cops
do have a right to stop a guy who is walking down the street and carrying a
case of beer, as long as the fellow appears to be under the legal age. On
the other hand, cops don't have the right to use such a "routine check" to
hassle the former classmate of one of their buddies... Likewise, cops have
the right to obtain potential evidence from the camera of a journalist, but
they have fairly well-defined procedures they are supposed to follow. The
fact that the Vancouver police department has admitted procedures were not
followed and issued Mr. Payne an apology speaks to that point.
I always like to draw parrallels from incidents like this to illustrate that
the disabled have their rights trampled on a daily basis because most people
just don't care if the disabled have rights or not. Certainly, lip service
is paid often enough to those rights, but, in practice, it's just not the
same. If my history and ascertians make you uncomfortable, then I have done
my part...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"jls" <notv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:amest4pr8u2p0qgs5...@4ax.com...
Well said...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:...
BTW, in case you question my assertion about IQ = 150, feel free to contact
a fellow named Braden Hirsch. I believe he still works for the Alberta
government, and I had the privilege / opportunity to work with him while I
was upgrading my education in the late 1980, and then again to work with him
in the '90s at a support service for disabled individuals attending a local
college in Edmonton. He pegged my IQ at 150, though noting it would be
difficult to determine any thing exactly given the sensory deficit and
experiencially diverse development I have functioned with.
You might want to pay particular attention to a book he wrote; it's in the
library of the University of Alberta and here is the catalog entry for it:
Comparison of computerized and standardized version of the Multidimensional
Aptitude
Battery and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised
Personal Author:
Hirsch, Braden P.
Title:
Comparison of computerized and standardized version of the Multidimensional
Aptitude Battery and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised / by
Braden P. Hirsch.
Publication info:
1986.
Physical descrip:
vii, 35 leaves ; 29 cm.
Subject term:
Intelligence tests--Data processing.
Subject term:
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
Dissertation note:
Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of Alberta, 1986.
Added author:
University of Alberta. Dept. of Educational Psychology.
Chris H
||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <6liDl.19783$%e2.1...@newsfe24.iad>, Martin Brown
>><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> However, there is a D-notice in force.
>> Really? Do you know that for a fact?
>
>ISTR they used those exact words on the BBC 10pm news last night.
Thanks
>> I thought that system had long since got to be replaced by something
>>less formal.
>
>I think they were *very* annoyed yesterday and wanted to be absolutely
>certain of enforcing the no show ban on the unwelcome pictures.
I agree. I am surprised that the picture was published given the
content.
>I just hope that having the operation go off at half cock doesn't
>completely screw up all chance of obtaining a conviction.
Agreed.
>Or worse still result in some innocent harmless individuals being
>snatched at gun point, locked up for 28 days and then released without
>charge.
Shirley not?
Dudley Hanks
Sorry, Jerry, you probably aren't used to dealing with people who can back
up what they say. But, my somewhat right of center conservatism insists
that I try to work within the accepted framework of things, as much as
possible. It's just that my conflicting mental ability and physical
limitations are constantly at odds, not so much with each other, more like
at odds with societal norms / expectations. Hence, most people can't relate
to my situation and just put me down as a left wing nut...
What can I say. Life is interesting, if nothing else...
Take Care,
Dudley
Savageduck
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:31:24 -0700, Savageduck <savag...@savage.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Officer involved shootings are a sensitive issue for the officers on
>> scene and they may not be thinking as they should if they are being
>> protective of a brother officer(s). An on scene supervisor would
>> normally get the involved officer(s) away from the scene and advise
>> them of their rights under POBAR (Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, the
>> cop's Miranda) as there will be a shooting review and there is always
>> the possibility of adverse action being taken against the officer(s) up
>> to the level of criminal prosecution. This is what happened with the
>> recent BART shooting in Oakland. That officer is currently facing
>> murder charges.
>
> Not knowing anything about the case you reference, I am loathe to
> consider any shooting by an officer to be 'murder'. Just from
> personal perspective, having some appreciation for the extreme
> circumstances under which officers often find themselves, it is a
> dangerous thing to expect perfection from them.
Here are some details for you to check:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/oscar_grant.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tuAhoTPXEk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVsncZ7K584&feature=related
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/14/BART.shooting.arrest/index.html
Certainly the charge of murder may be a case of a DA over-charging and
may end up with a voluntary or in-voluntary manslaughter result. It may
result in aquital and a finding that the shooting was accidental.
What cannot be refuted is the well documented negligence on the part of
the officer and the death of the victim, Oscar Grant.
>
> For me it wouild have to be a pretty extreme circumstance, involving
> at the least a complete negligence in disregard for others, and/or
> some form of abuse of power, for me to ever consider this a reasonable
> action. Yes, "we the people" do need to make sure we are protected
> from abuse and tyranny from our government "agents", but we also need
> to make sure they have enough freedom to act in our interests as well.
Agreed.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
George Kerby
On 4/8/09 2:26 PM, in article 3U6Dl.20763$Db2.10544@edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:qeydnWaEW_WpwEHU...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>> Dudley,
>> You sound like a person I wouldn't want to know. Your confrontational
>> attitude, and tendency to do really stupid things (hitting a cop) will
>> likely keep your life very interesting. I hope that you have learned to
>> be less pugnacious as you have gotten older.
>> I suspect that in this area, you would still be sitting in prison,
>> wondering how you got there.
>
> Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to keep in mind
> that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a condition that would
> result in a slow, permanent, and complete loss of vision. I was highly
> graphical, and had been taking pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the
> age of 18. How many 18 year old photographers do you know who were allowed
> backstage to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton, Eddie
> Money, Heart, etc...??
>
Dudley, do you still have those? I would love to see them posted. I too, at
that age (early 1970's) was the "officilal photographer" of several venues
in the Houston area. I hate it that nagatives of my backstage photography of
Mothers of Invention, The Animals, Fever Tree, 13th Floor Elevators, ZZ Top,
Joe Cocker, Jethro Tull and several others that my feeble mind cannot recall
has been lost.
> Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision without
> having an accident.
>
You must mean 90% normal vision, I hope!!!
Dudley Hanks
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C603ED47.26CE2%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
Nope, I only had 10% normal vision, the minimum vision required to obtain a
driver's licence...
Take Care,
Dudly
Paul Bartram
"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-g20-police-assault-footage
> Here's a case where a video shot by a civilian is both evidence and
> 'public interest.'. Should the police have seized this? Note: the Guardian
> article does not say who took the video, reporter or bystander (or indeed
> a police videographer.) But the fact that it was leaked to the press first
> means at least we know about it and it can't be covered up. However, that
> doesn't make it any less useable as evidence.
Here's the latest on this story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/10/g20-assault-investigation
Couple of things: Looks like the police are going to 'soft pedal' on the
investigation, as they haven't even interviewed the 'offender' after 48
hours (although he is suspended from duty - with pay or without?)
They now say there were no CCTV cameras in the vicinity. Hard to believe, in
the centre of London, the most surveilled place on the planet.
There is a possibility of previous contact with the police, not that this
would be any excuse for thuggery, but I get the feeling that The Guardian
(one of the few newspapers still in existence with morals) will keep their
teeth locked on this story, and the truth will 'out' in the end.
Paul
Ray Fischer
> Savageduck <savag...@savage.net>
>>Officer involved shootings are a sensitive issue for the officers on
>>scene and they may not be thinking as they should if they are being
>>protective of a brother officer(s). An on scene supervisor would
>>normally get the involved officer(s) away from the scene and advise
>>them of their rights under POBAR (Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, the
>>cop's Miranda) as there will be a shooting review and there is always
>>the possibility of adverse action being taken against the officer(s) up
>>to the level of criminal prosecution. This is what happened with the
>>recent BART shooting in Oakland. That officer is currently facing
>>murder charges.
>
>Not knowing anything about the case you reference, I am loathe to
>consider any shooting by an officer to be 'murder'.
The victim was handcuffed, face down, and being controlled by at least
one other officer. The officer took out his gun and shot the victim
in the back.
> Just from
>personal perspective, having some appreciation for the extreme
>circumstances under which officers often find themselves, it is a
>dangerous thing to expect perfection from them.
We expect that the police not be treated like gods, free to kill
people through arrogance or negligence, and above any punishment by
the law. To argue that the upholders of the law should be above the
law is irrational and dangerous.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Savageduck
Agreed, that is the bottom line.
Law enforcement agencies (in the US at least) are servants of the
people. They are expected to enforce & uphold the Law (& local/State
statutes) and protect the community. If anything Peace Officers should
be (& in most cases are) held to a higher standard.
Earlier I refered to POBAR, here is more on that
http://resources.lawinfo.com/Search.html?q=POBAR and as far as rights
during Internal Investigation goes, they are subject in California, at
least to what is known as the "Lybarger" admonishment
http://www.seba.biz/pdf/Lybarger.pdf This basically means the officer
is given the equivilant of the Miranda warning, but he does not have
the option of remaining silent. Refusal to answer questions can, and
does result in immediate termination from the agency. There are other
issues related to "Lybarger" which you can certainly research for
yourself.
During my career in law enforcement I was always aware of Citizen
Complaints and a potential fall from grace due to officer arrogance.
Negligence is another matter which should be fixable with training, if
not, a career change is in order. I tried to make officers I supervised
aware of my expectations and I still had to deal with overzealous cops
and the Union representatives.
Their contention always seemed to go something like this, "What? You
don't want me to do my job! They are all scumbags! OK! I guess I just
have to turn a blind eye to everything!" or words to that effect.
Some would accept the critizism & training and go on to be fine officers.
No Peace officer should consider themselves above the Law, and those
engaged in corrupt acts are criminal.
The same applies to our Law makers and representatives in Government.
If they are caught in criminal acts they should be given the privilige
of experiencing the due process they are deserving of. (That is a
non-partisan sentiment.)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dudley Hanks
Well put, SD.
What I find interesting in debates of this kind is that police officers are
expected to get it right all the time, no matter how heated the emotions
get. But, I'd say a lot of the fellows on this group, as well as 90% of
professional sports fans (hockey in particular), are more than willing to
excuse the athletes for losing their cool and duking it out, sometimes for a
small thing that an opponent did to another member of the team. Even when
things get out of hand, as in the Todd Bertuzzi incident, devoted fans have
been known to place more emphasis on goals scored than on the fact a career
was ended through stupidity.
Now, the life and death pressures which cops face make the stresses and
strains of a pro game pale in significance. Still, there is little room for
sympathy when an officer loses his cool, even though common sense will tell
you he / she is continually required to work through situations that would
reduce an average citizen to an incoherent, blubbering blob.
As noted in other posts, I have little or no respect for anyone, officers
included, who abuse their authority. But, what is abuse in one situation
might be a legitimate reaction to a dangerous stimulus when the
circumstances warrant.
Take Care,
Dudley
Chris H
Bartram <paul.b...@AT.OR.invalid> writes
>
>"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-g20-police-
>>assault-footage
>
>> Here's a case where a video shot by a civilian is both evidence and
>> 'public interest.'. Should the police have seized this? Note: the Guardian
>> article does not say who took the video, reporter or bystander (or indeed
>> a police videographer.) But the fact that it was leaked to the press first
>> means at least we know about it and it can't be covered up. However, that
>> doesn't make it any less useable as evidence.
>
>Here's the latest on this story:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/10/g20-assault-investigation
>
>Couple of things: Looks like the police are going to 'soft pedal' on the
>investigation, as they haven't even interviewed the 'offender' after 48
>hours (although he is suspended from duty - with pay or without?)
>
>They now say there were no CCTV cameras in the vicinity. Hard to believe, in
>the centre of London, the most surveilled place on the planet.
VERY hard to believe especially in the Square Mile Also I would expect
the police to have their own video of al the interface points between
the Police and the crowd.
>There is a possibility of previous contact with the police, not that this
>would be any excuse for thuggery,
Then they should have realised he was not part of the demonstration on
that first encounter... so even less of an excuse
>but I get the feeling that The Guardian
>(one of the few newspapers still in existence with morals) will keep their
>teeth locked on this story, and the truth will 'out' in the end.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> Jerry, who said anything about "street" racing? I raced on the
> track, and I did it sober. I lined my Mustang up against
> stripped out Camarros, rail dragsters, and anything else that I
> could. Ever heard of bracket racing? Completely legal, on a
> strip, and I hassled "street" racers I knew, telling them that
> if they wanted to prove their rides were fast, produce a time
> slip, it's much more impressive. The other drivers knew there
> were risks, as much from "normal" drivers, equipment
> malfunctions and track conditions as from a driver with poor
> vision. A friend of mine died on the same track as I raced
> because he took a corner wide and ran into a dead machine parked
> there, waiting for a toe...
No sanctioning racing body would have let you on the track without
a signoff from your doctor, which would have eliminated you. And, I
didn't say you were stoned, YOU did.
Sorry, Dudley, but I don't have any more time to take apart these
wild claims, they are no longer passing the laugh test. You seem
like a nice guy so I hope you seek some professional help to cope
with your delusions.
--
Spamm Trappe
>> I too, at
>> that age (early 1970's) was the "officilal photographer" of several venues
>> in the Houston area.
>> You must mean 90% normal vision, I hope!!!
>
> Nope, I only had 10% normal vision, the minimum vision required to obtain a
> driver's licence...
... in Texas.
You really don't want to know what else passes for "normal" in Texas.