It's just keeps getting more surreal

[mharris]

Will things change? Don't know Matt, ask Barack,

 

"By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama told House Democrats on Tuesday that as president he would order his attorney general to scour White House executive orders and expunge any that "trample on liberty," several lawmakers said."

 

Don't things start at the top?

[bluphoto]

Sorry, but I simply don't see the harm in an officer asking to see your photo's and I still think wierd that someone

would rather be detained than show them. I guess it's the photographers freedom of choice whether to be detained or

show the photo's and hey, maybe he has a thing for police stations - who knows.

 

Sure, it's a shame that society has turned the peoples liberty into a continual battle against authority but that is

indeed what is happening. An "us and them" attitude which is at the root of many of America's problems today.

Would it not do photographers a better service to comply with the authorities and demonstrate that in fact we are

NOT a group of hot headed antagonists requiring ever increasing legislation to monitor and police. If we continue to

hide what we do from anyone then of course they will eventually become suspicoius and legislation and licensing

with be inevitable.

 

Okay so maybe it's a bit heavy handed to detain him for not showing his photo's but that was the Photographers

choice, which I'm sure was communicated to him at the time.

 

When they say detain, did they mean arrest him and take him to a police station for questioning, or are we talking

about sitting in the back of the police car for a while? Did he end up showing them the pictures anyway?

 

Jeez, these people really get my goat, so politically motivated and determined to make a point that they are blinded

from normal common sense.

 

Okay, so maybe the driving license was a bad analogy, but cops aren't aliens you know. What's wrong with NOT

going out of your way to create enemies for once.

[mharris]

how far will you let it go Guy? Illegal search and seizure? It's already being done. Illegal wiretaps? Also being done. Airport security lists based solely on a last name? Being done. Trying to get telcoms immunity from prosecution because what you ordered them to do may be against the law? That's happening also. How far will you let it go Guy?

[bluphoto]

No, but as I mentioned earlier, we have to treat each case on it's own merits. If someone asks me to do something reasonable - doesn't have to be a police officer, and it doesn't cost me anything, then generally, I'll try to help them out.

[bluphoto]

We need to earn the trust of the authorities, as a community. Stands like this prove nothing other than the obstinacy of one man, which may then be construed by those particular police officers as the obstinacy of photographers in general.

 

IMHO he did prove a point, though, but it wasn't the one he was trying to prove and it didn't do us any favours.

[lex_jenkins]

Unfortunately the "bottom-up" approach to effecting change, from the local level on up, is no longer feasible. Local governments have been co-opted by the COG (Council of Government) paradigm, which is strongly influenced and in some cases outright directed by federal government and corporate pressures.

 

I saw this happening more than 20 years ago as a reporter covering the NCTCOG (North Central Texas Council of Government) meetings. At the time it seemed to be a presumptuous approach and I didn't take it very seriously. But over the years this paradigm has greatly shifted the sphere of influence away from the ordinary citizen, who is now dismissed as a pest to be tolerated but not respected.

 

I've seen several instances of individual representatives of local government - members of city councils, boards of education, transportation, county commissioners courts, etc. - who have tried to buck the trend and fight on behalf of the interests of individual citizens rather than the collective. These representatives are consistently demonized in the press, their reputations smeared through biased scrutiny of their personal lives while the members who go with the flow are left in relative privacy.

 

The system is designed to discourage people from taking a stand. It's a rare individual who is willing to risk his/her personal and business reputations, to incur the wrath of law enforcement, to be dismissed as kooks in public forums like this, in an effort to effect change at the local level. Give it a try, then come back and tell us that the bottom-up approach is better than recognizing that it must also come from the top and meet somewhere in the middle.

[michael_dimarzio]

Cool, so now we have low ranking coppers deciding what is a National Security issue. I'll be glad when this national psycho episode is over, not that I expect it ever will be.

 

I decided to switch rather then fight, and support the Fox News (re)Education and accept peace, and making the world a better place with 500lb laser guided bombs.

 

Way to go Barney, guess you can feel pretty good telling your wife about being involved in National Security Issues, and poh-tecten Merica gainst dem terrists.

[catlinhumes]

If they ask, let them see the pictures (if you're shooting digital) in the back of your camera...and if they want to take them get ready to fight the system. If this happened to me I would show them, but wouldn't hand over my photographs.

 

my 2cents

[lex_jenkins]

In the US you cannot be forced to show your photos without a violation of your 4th and 5th Amendment rights. There must be probable cause and a warrant.

 

If you voluntarily show your photos you may place yourself in an even more perilous position, if an overzealous prosecutor decides to pursue a case against you. If the photos are forcibly taken from your possession without probable cause or warrant there is a better chance of a defense in court.

 

While it's convenient to view such cooperation as expedient, it amounts to tacit approval of abuses of authority.

[steve_swinehart]

Lex - you are 100% right on..and the mentality even trickles down to the security guard level.

 

I had a run-in with a rent-a-cop at a movie set. The set was along side of a public road and under construction - no

filming, and in fact - no work going on as it was Sunday morning. So, I could, in no way, have been interfering with

their work. And please, I don't care to hear bogus comments about copyright issues because that does not apply to

this situation.

 

I was told I could not take photographs of the set. I told the security guard that I was on the shoulder of a public

road, making it legal for me to take the photographs. He threatened to call the police, I said, "Okay - go for it." "I'll

be glad to discuss this with the police."

 

Instead he said, "Okay, I'll stand in the way and block you." I said, "Great, you make a wonderful addition to the

photo." Click, click, click.....

 

Interestingly, the local newspaper runs a column on where movies are being shot thoughout the state, and the

paper's photographer (who's been shooting news photos for at least 30 years), was given the same treatement I got.

To the newspaper's credit, they pointed out that shooting photographs from a public roadway is legal as part of the

story.

[jay sturdevant]

Guy,

You say it's society that has turned the idea of liberty into a battle against authority, but in reality liberty is an inalienable

right bestowed on us at birth. If authority does their duty to protect those rights there is no 'us and them'.

 

It has been an executive branch of government that has used the idea of our safety to remove the possibility of debate or dissention

and chip away at our cilil liberties and pursue an agenda that has everything to do with profiteering and expanding their

power and nothing to do with our safety at all. 'The root of America's problems' today as you put it is in my opinion these

neo-fasscist creeps who wrap themselves in a flag while violating our constitutional principals at every turn for their own

advantage and a legislature that doesn't represent the rights of their constituents, just their corporate benefactors.

 

How can you expect citizens to trust an authority that raises their color-coded 'terror alert' during their political opponent's

nomination speech? Do we want to let authoritarian goons tell us what constitutes a matter of National Security, even if

it violates amendments in the constitution? Few people probably remember but when the anti-war fervor reached it's

zenith years ago, the current administration mentioned categorizing war protesters in Oregon as a threat to national

security. Once we surrender our rights for these fallacious goals of safety and false nationalism we cease to become

what made this country great, history is riddled with poor souls who travelled that path.

[jim_horton]

My guess is that what was likely being 'protected' was damaging publicity to Marathon Oil.

 

Local cops protecting their bread and butter--Marathon is likely a large tax base for that city and therefore almost directly pays the cops' salaries. Photos of what may have been an embarassing situation or a bungled cover-up of an industrial accident would not be welcome by Marathon and by extension the police. Just another point of view...

--Jim

[stevespencer]

"...the right of the authorities to stop and search?"

 

What such right? I don't think so. Not in the U.S.A.

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Landrum Kelly]

What we need is a little serious disrespect for authority.

 

Some of you guys are pimping for an incipient police state.

 

--Lannie

[john_macpherson]

Guy Carnegie [subscriber] , Jul 30, 2008; 04:14 a.m.

 

Sorry, but I simply don't see the harm in an officer asking to see your photo's and I still think wierd that someone would rather be detained than show them.

 

And

 

Guy Carnegie [subscriber] , Jul 30, 2008; 05:04 a.m.

 

We need to earn the trust of the authorities, as a community.

 

 

Well a couple of observations. Ok so they ask to see the images, you comply, they ask you to delete. The minute you delete those images (assuming you have done nothing wrong) you delete the evidence of your innocence. Foolish thing to do - because you're placing your trust in the ignorance of the person making the request of you, and you have no idea what happens next. Bad move. Of course you could refuse and be arrested, which would be a wrongful arrest, a waste of police time, and an embarassment in your day you could well do without.

 

Trust? We as a community need to be able to trust our law enforcement authorities, and we need to know that their knowledge of our rights is accurate and our freedoms will be upheld by them, as is our legal entitlement. Period.

 

Now do you see the link between the two quotes from your posts?

[jbs]

No disrespect, Bob but I don't care for your analogy.

 

"Driving is a privilidge. You need a licence. Requiring one to be shown is reasonable

 

Taking photographs is a right (1st ammendment). You don't need a licence.

 

A rather large difference, don't you think?"

 

NO.

 

Driving is not a privilege and I get seriously annoyed whenever I hear that kind of tripe.

 

Do you all think the current erosions to your liberty are the first?

 

Here is just one source on the topic of your "Right" to transport yourself anywhere in the US.

 

http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml

[bluphoto]

Why would you delete any images? I thought they just wanted to SEE them. If I was asked to delete them then I'd

tell them that I COULD delete them, but that I had a program at home which could recover deleted images, so what

would be the point?

<p>

I'm sorry, but deleting the evidence of your innocence? a couple of observations:

<p>

1. there are dozens of software applications designed purely to recover deleted images from memory cards, so if

you want to, you can recover the images.<br>

2. If they DID ask you to delete, and you complied, do you think you would still be arrested? As such, who

would you have to prove your innocence to?

<p>

To get back to the point, the police asked to SEE the photographers images and he CHOSE to be arrested, rather

than show them. To me, that smells a little like a lack of common sense. Perhaps this guy is a hero in some

peoples view, but not mine. I'm guessing that those police officers will not have a better opnion of people with

cameras because of this event.

<p>

<i>"Bad move. Of course you could refuse and be arrested, which would be a wrongful arrest, a waste of police time,

and an embarassment in your day you could well do without."</i> - I think that is exactly my point, thanks.

<p>

If someone wants to make a point, do it through the proper channels (whatever they may be). Being defiant gets you

nowhere.

<p>

In the UK, the police have a right to stop and search and use this when they believe someone may be carrying a

concealed weapon, illegal subsances or breaking and entering equipment for example. In the US perhaps the

authorities don't have this power - I really don't know - allowing questionable citizens their constitutional right to carry

unlicensed concealed weapons, pockets full of dope and jimmy bars etc. This police power isn't seen in the UK as

treading on peoples liberties, it's seen as providing us with a safer environment to live in. They don't misuse this

power, at least not where I live. I'm sure the police in the UK are no smarter or dumber than the police in the States

(you guys agree, right?) and they can make the same judgement calls that our police make.

<p>

If I treat a colleague of mine as a dumbass (assuming he's not) then I would expect to be treated in return with

disdain. Similarly, if someone treats me with no repsect, then I will not respect them.

<p>

Bottom line is that police officers should be treated, in gerenal, with the respect they are due because of the position

in society which they hold. In return, once they understand that we respect them as people and as LEO's, they WILL

eventually provide us law abiding citizens with the same respect.

<p>

I'm not talking about political figures here, only about the front line cops on the street. If we go into politics, that's a

whole other ball game.

[john_macpherson]

To get back to the point, the police asked to SEE the photographers images and he CHOSE to be arrested, rather

than show them. To me, that smells a little like a lack of common sense. Perhaps this guy is a hero in some

peoples view, but not mine. I'm guessing that those police officers will not have a better opnion of people with

cameras because of this event.

 

"Bad move. Of course you could refuse and be arrested, which would be a wrongful arrest, a waste of police time,

and an embarassment in your day you could well do without." - I think that is exactly my point, thanks.

 

If someone wants to make a point, do it through the proper channels (whatever they may be). Being defiant gets

you nowhere.

 

Guy - the 'proper channels' are your legal rights, which you dont have to give up becaue some law enforcement

officer is not aware of them, or chooses to ignore them. I'm aware of all the software you mention.

 

"If I was asked to delete them then I'd tell them that I COULD delete them, but that I had a program at home

which could recover deleted images, so what would be the point?"

 

And then having made that point they demand you hand over the card. And you comply. Both parties in ignorance of

each other's legal rights is a recipie for disaster. Or you refuse to hand it over, and of course they arrest you.

[jbs]

Lex,

I have tried the bottom up approach,

 

"The system is designed to discourage people from taking a stand. It's a rare individual who is willing to risk his/her personal and business reputations, to incur the wrath of law enforcement, to be dismissed as kooks in public forums like this, in an effort to effect change at the local level. Give it a try, then come back and tell us that the bottom-up approach is better than recognizing that it must also come from the top and meet somewhere in the middle."

 

and it is very tough and I got beat up, a lot. I lost. But, I really don't see this changing from the top. Though, I agree that you must have both if you do not want to have blood shed.

[jim_horton]

A little topical anecdote...

 

I had a vaguely similar incident in my 20's, I worked for a construction contractor who built specialty concrete

foundations for machinery in factories.

 

I was always fascinated with this machinery and how stuff is made, and always brought my camera to work and took

pictures of the assembly lines, etc. So one night I was shooting a new robotics line at Matsushta (formerly

Quasar/Motorola) in the Chicago area. I was immediately grabbed by two security guards and almost literally

dragged--feet barely touching the ground--to a back office. They asked for the film (this was early 80's), I refused.

They called in the head of security, and visions of the torture scenes from Falcon and the Snowman came to my

head. I steadfastly maintained that this was my hobby and no, I'm not a "corporate spy for RCA", which was their

contention.

 

I, with a flair for the dramatic, refused to give them the film. I had already taken another roll stashed in my toolbag

and this was somewhat expendable--so I pulled the film out of the roll destroying it in front of them. It became a

huge issue, almost cost my boss the contract with Matsushta. To save our contract and 'prove this was just a

hobby', the next day I had to bring in my collection of jobsite photos, which of course was very thorough. The

Matsushta top brass that were called in apologized for the roughness and left me with the admonition to not pursue

my hobby at their location.

 

--Jim

[lex_jenkins]

<i>"Being defiant gets you nowhere."</i><br>

 

That's what King George kept trying to tell us here, hundreds of years ago. We just don't listen very well.<p>

 

<i>"This police power isn't seen in the UK as treading on peoples liberties, it's seen as providing us with a safer environment to live in."</i><br>

 

Heh. The irony is delicious. Tastes like... cherry. Check your facts, Guy. Not all of your peers agree.<p>

 

<i>In return, once they understand that we respect them as people and as LEO's, they WILL eventually provide us law abiding citizens with the same respect.</i><br>

If you don't see the inherent fallacy in that statement your convoluted view of the human condition is almost beyond repair.

[Landrum Kelly]

"Being defiant gets you nowhere."

That's what King George kept trying to tell us here, hundreds of years ago. We just don't listen very well.

 

Amen to that, Lex!

 

Authority will always have to be challenged. Let us make us make despotism very, very expensive for the despots.

 

--Lannie

[summitar]

Was it Sinclair Lewis who said, "When facism comes to America, it will draped with the flag and carrying a cross.

[bluphoto]

Okay, I'm not going to push my point any further - I know when I'm fighting a losing battle ;). Perhaps my view of

humanity is a little rose tinted. Perhaps living in my isolated town in the Scottish highlands gives me a different view

of the attitudes of people than if I lived, for example, in downtown Houston - no offence meant to Houstonites -

random selection of Texan cities.

 

It appears from the above comments that you guys see the majority of "city folks" are not only untrusting of others ,

but to some degree untrustworthy as well.

 

I guess this is something which is hard to generalise about. Not all people have the same attitudes or values.

Personally I'm glad I live where I do and have the values that I do.

 

Kerry: I had to look up fascism to see what you meant. One definition is stated as

"attacks weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism; promised vigorous foreign and military programs;

undertook state control of economy to reduce social friction." - rings a few bells to me at least.