This is what happens when people stop standing up for their rights

[ray .]

<blockquote>

<p>the idea is not so much "fairness" as it is to drive any dissenting voices underground.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you speaking of those poor dissenting voices who are being paid $400,000,000 for 8 years of dissent or $100,000,000 for 5?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"Nice try. You should read more carefully. I suggested the OP talk to Holocaust survivors to get a better understanding before using the phrase "police state" so casually."</p>

<p>your point being what, Brad?</p>

<p>interesting how you described the Oakland events with such surety, thsn dodged the question when i asked if you were actually physically present on 1/7/09...yet you accuse me of hyperbole...i was an eyewitness, you probably got your information from TV...and you think you are qualified to determine what a police state is and isn't?</p>

<p>"Is there a point to your BART recruitment poster photo - other than it was there and you snapped it?"</p>

<p>i thought it was a fairly ironic statement considering the circumstances. is there a point to your posts, other than to confuse the issues?</p>

[ray .]

<p>Reading through this, I'm not sure what relevance there is to the fact some of the people protesting in Oakland were from out of town or from out of the area. Maybe the person mentioning it could explain.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>You all should put a couple hours aside and watch a great documentary, <em>Zeitgeist-The Movie</em></p>

<p>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197</p>

<p>before carrying on arguing with one another.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> your point being what, Brad?</p>

<p>My point (actually a suggestion) was put forward very succinctly: " I suggested the OP talk to Holocaust survivors to get a better understanding before using the phrase "police state" so casually." Is there an element of that you do not understand? There are certainly many examples of totalitarian regimes (past and present) from around the world that one can draw on to make relative comparisons. Perhaps you would like to make you case about Oakland with some of those? That would be instructive and enlightening - rather than just making a declaration based upon seeing a demonstration/riot.<br /> <br /> >>> is there a point to your posts, other than to confuse the issues?</p>

<p>Nothing confusing; except to you perhaps. It's a fair question as I believe the OP has not experienced or even understands the elements that make up that kind of oppression. Perhaps you can describe yours?</p>

<p>>>> i was an eyewitness, you probably got your information from TV...and you think you are qualified to determine what a police state is and isn't?</p>

<p>More obfuscation... And therefore because you witnessed a demonstration/riot you are somehow more qualified to decide what a police state is? Are you serious? Based on what, your photos? The definition of what a police state is pretty clear - and there are decades of totalitarian regimes around the world to draw on and compare. What you're saying is because you have posted some police line photos above you are somehow uniquely qualified to make that decision as to what a police state is and isn't? And that you've come to the conclusion that Oakland is indeed a police state? Please...</p>

<p>With respect to your photos, compared to the HUGE number I've seen from both the traditional media and of citizens with cameras; yours are incredibly lacking journalistically. Where are your images of the conflicts and fights between rioters and police? Or showing arrests being made? Where are the photos of the rioters trashing businesses and vehicles? The fires? Where are your photos of the police abuse that some allege? Where are you images supporting your view that Oakland is a police state? Your images show or address none of that.</p>

<p>Yet the actions of the rioters and police were covered extensively (video and stills) in great detail on television (that you ironically hold in contempt), print media, and the internet. Your photo of the recruitment poster is accurate and informative; the mainstream media to which you hold in low regard missed that.</p>

<p>You hold yourself out as a "citizen journalist" yet what you come back with neither tells a story with respect to newsworthy events or enlightens. The cellphone video of the Grant shooting, OTOH, is an outstanding example of citizen journalism at it's finest - it's not about pretty pictures. Your photos above are certainly nice from a fine-arts perspective. They were taken on the sidelines as many others with digital cameras.</p>

<p>The mainstream media had far better coverage showing what was happening from the INSIDE. You could learn a lot from them...</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hey brad, you don't have to like my stuff--it's a free country after all--but you kinda sound like a hater. no, strike that: you ARE a hater. why? i'm not sure.</p>

<p>thanks for the feedback and all, but i'm going to take your opinions with a very small grain of salt, because that's all it is, an opinion. you're entitled to it, but it doesnt make a difference one way or another. it's funny, my editor at Vibe.com told me he liked the fact that my photos showed a different side of the riots than what was being filtered through mainstream media channels. maybe he should have checked with you first.</p>

<p>dont be mad at me just because i was there and you werent. if you dont think 200 cops in riot gear on 14th and broadway is evidence of what a police state looks and feels like, i'm certainly not going to convince you otherwise, since you appear to have your mind made up. have a nice day.</p>

 

[Brad_]

<p>>>> hey brad, you don't have to like my stuff--it's a free country after all--but you kinda sound like a hater. no, strike that: you ARE a hater. why? i'm not sure.</p>

<p>Huh? A hater? I think your photos are VERY nice - I like them! And you're no doubt a nice person as well. Why would I be mad at you. That's silly. And you're right, thankfully it is a free country...</p>

<p>But as you held yourself being out there and witnessing all that happened in Oakland, and how the mainstream media got it wrong with bias, and touting your photos out as an example of citizen journalism while holding that same mainstream media in contempt, then I would at least like to see your photos of the action that actually did occur. If you've got 'em showing the real story, the police state police abuse, etc., then you should show them. That would convince me. That's what real photojournalism is about.</p>

<p>From television and the Chronicle I saw video and stills of the police and rioters getting into it, rioters smashing windows and setting cars on fire, police cars being trashed, arrests being made, police shoving rioters, rioters shoving police, peaceful protests, businesses being boarded up, shop owners being interviewed, etc, etc. That's <em>newsworthy</em> and what <em>journalism</em> is about. Because of that, I'm not going to give up on the Chronicle and television.</p>

<p>Peace to you. Keep shooting...</p>

<p> </p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr Goodfellows...</p>

<p>I am unwilling to take my chances in the "new" not-so-merry old England with a smile and aftershave. That new ruling I read about in Armature Photographer is the pits. I live in the USA but have been subscribing to several English photo magazines like Armature Photographer , Practical Photography, etc. for many years. My wife and I have now retired and due to the interesting photo opportunities we have seen over the years in the English magazines we had factored a trip to England in our retirement savings. However, we are not going to risk a legal hassle thousands of miles from home with nobody local to appeal to for reasonableness. Suddenly the beaches of St. Martin look even better and the light will also be better for the slow film we like to shoot. My health is on the edge so I may not have the choice to make. But.. If I can travel this summer, I'm not about to spend my last days in some dank English prison while a Solicitor begs some court for mercy because I wanted to take a tourist type picture of the hotel we were staying in. </p>

<p>And, no, the USA is not perfect, by any means. Here, though, I have a good reputation and a clean record. That is also known to officials local to my home town. Here I could refer the Police Official to one in my home town which might make a difference in whether I was jailed or not if my actions had been innocent. I also believe that the a USA citizen should not have to have a good reputation or clean record to stay out of jail. They just should not be breaking the law and the laws should not restrict the free and harmless activities of the citizen. </p>

<p>Tom</p>

 

[Carl Stone]

<p>Eric, your reporting is just not objective. You've allowed yourself to get caught up in the story, which is your right, but it makes lousy journalism. Typical of today's left wing slant on things. Nobody here condones the death of an innocent person, but you have not shown ANY evidence that the death is related in any way to Oakland being a police state. That is your opinion, and you've failed to back it up with solid evidence, or even acknowledge that rioting was not the proper response to this unfortunate situation. </p>

<p>While you were berating the police, you failed to mention that the crime rate in Oakland is four times the national average. I can't even imagine what it would be like to live in Oakland without the police, given the way above average crime rate. The BART cop responsible for the shooting will be prosecuted, but somehow I don't think that you'll think that's enough. Attitude is what led to the riots, Eric, and it's one of the things that has plagued Oakland for many years. </p>

<p> </p>

[trex1]

Maybe we are drifting a little off the main topic, which is the freedom of the photographer to document public activity. Also, perhaps we are all getting too emotional (not least of all me..).<p>

 

I think the final arbiter, has to be reason. What is reasonable, and what is not? Is it reasonable for a celebrity to have to dodge legions of paparazzi wherever they go? I happen to think not, and think that a celebrity should be able to sue paparazzi for harassment and be entitled to their personal space.<p>

 

However, my personal philosophy is that anything paid for by taxpayers should be open to examination, the government should be permitted to have no secrets. Once they can punish people for printing or displaying the tax payer funded activities of our government, at any level, you already have the police state in an embryonic form.<p>

 

The government derives its power from the people. The people need to beat the government over the head, daily, if necessary, and make them understand this simple yet important fact. The members of the government are a lot like priests. They live off of the people, but they become corrupt, forgetting that they serve the people, and instead puffed up with arrogance they erect a system of controls, aimed at subjugating the populace, which in fact are the true masters of the government.<p>

 

They use tricks. They create boogey men and then tell you and me that we need them, the government, to protect us. The boogey man can be "terrorists" or black people, or immigrants, or the Commies, or the A-rabs, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, global warming, the impending collapse of the economy.<p>

 

All these things can be dealt with easily, they are not impossible problems, they are all very simple to address, but when you have an uneducated, semi literate public, and a corrupt government that thinks only of expanding its own power, then the system becomes dysfunctional.<p>

 

Damn! I am drifting....<p>

[trex1]

Bottom line, the job of journalists is to get the truth out to the people. That's it. And if it means dying or being thrown in prison, then that is the honorable path to take. Man, my wife would have a fit, if she heard this...<p>

 

If there is a tradition of freedom of the press, great, if not, then why not fight for one? An intrepid journalist, unafraid of the authorities is just as essential, I would argue more so, than armored billy club toting Stormtroopers, or even many of our self serving politicians. We used to fight for things in America, but we have become a weak and flabby people.

[ray .]

<p>Sheesh, didn't we just have an election that was in large part about reigning in an out-of-bounds government that was forgetting the rights of the citizenry as the US Constitution states it?</p>

<p>Gitmo?</p>

<p>Wiretapping?</p>

<p>Politicization of the Justice Department?</p>

<p>Ring a bell with anyone?</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"From television and the Chronicle I saw video and stills of the police and rioters getting into it, rioters smashing windows and setting cars on fire, police cars being trashed, arrests being made, police shoving rioters, rioters shoving police, peaceful protests, businesses being boarded up, shop owners being interviewed, etc, etc. That's <em>newsworthy</em> and what <em>journalism</em> is about. Because of that, I'm not going to give up on the Chronicle and television."</p>

<p>"You've allowed yourself to get caught up in the story, which is your right, but it makes lousy journalism. Typical of today's left wing slant on things. Nobody here condones the death of an innocent person, but you have not shown ANY evidence that the death is related in any way to Oakland being a police state. That is your opinion, and you've failed to back it up with solid evidence, or even acknowledge that rioting was not the proper response to this unfortunate situation. While you were berating the police, you failed to mention that the crime rate in Oakland is four times the national average. I can't even imagine what it would be like to live in Oakland without the police, given the way above average crime rate. The BART cop responsible for the shooting will be prosecuted, but somehow I don't think that you'll think that's enough."</p>

<p>oh jeez, read me the riot act (pun intended), will ya? you know what you guys have turned into? sanctimonious pontificators whose harumphing is a thin veneer for a myopic perspective.... i hate to tell you guys, but the majority of the responses by protestors have been peaceful. as i stated earlier, reports of businesses damaged were exaggerated by 90%. it is true that there were some provacateurs who may or may not have been from out of town, but it's also true the same burning police car image was shown over and over again on TV.</p>

<p>Brad, you might want to reread "1984" for the implications of that--or if you prefer something more contemporary, how about watching "Minority Report" or "I, Robot." i never asked you to give up the Chronicle or TV, but if you think the media doesnt have a spin, you're dumber than i thought. i read the Chron and Tribune's accounts with interest, and honestly, if i wasnt there i would have walked away with an entirely different take on it. the media didnt report, for instance, that none of the businesses displaying Oscar Grant flyers in their windows suffered any vandalism, which is a pretty signfiicant detail to omit.</p>

<p>sorry, but you guys have fed into the media slant, which automatically chooses the most explotative side of the story, even if its not entirely accurate, because that's what drives ratings/readership.</p>

<p>i work in journalism, so i understand the importance of objectivity where applicable. but the role of the press is not just to be detached and removed from humanity--we have computers for that. my intent in sharing these pictures was to simply document what i saw with my own eyes during these events. Carl, if you're too uptight and too conservative and too ignorant to understand how this has impacted the community where i live, or the larger issues at play here, then it's not worth my time to try to explain it to you.</p>

<p>with all due respect, Carl, it's not my job to prove to you that oakland is a police state. and, come to think of it, you havent proven than oakland is NOT a police state (lol). if you think the shooting of Oscar Grant was an isolated incident, you're absolutely dead wrong. if you think 200 riot cops in the downtown has no larger societal implications, nothing i photograph or write will change your mind. and as for the "proper response" to an unarmed man shot in the back by a police officer, i think you'll get lots of differing opinions on that, depending on who you ask.</p>

<p>it is quite telling, however, that the DA only charged the shooter with murder AFTER the riot or rebellion or whatever you want to call it, so your self-righteousness means very little as far as grasping the context which caused these incidents to happen.</p>

<p>you can go on an on about oakland's crime rate, but that's no justification for police brutality, excessive force, widespread corruption, incompetence, lack of accountability, etc.</p>

<p>this should be kind of obvious, but crime is a hot-button issue which has polarized people and tricked them into thinking that having a police state is in their best interest. when in fact, a police state is only in the best interests of the police and those who profit from the prison economy in some way, shape, or form. let's be realistic: crime is an issue in ANY major urban city, so i'm not sure what your point is about Oakland--conditions there are similar to what you'll find in LA, NYC, Philadephia, Detroit, etc., etc. if you havent figured it out yet, the number one cause of crime is lack of proper employment. the number two cause of crime is poor education. the number three cause of crime is high recidivism rates. and the number four cause of crime are evironmental factors/quality of life issues.</p>

<p>my goal in sharing these pics was simply to show that police statification, as per the OP's original post, isn't just something happening in England, but in America as well as the rest of the world. you can argue all day about the value of protests in affecting social change, but that has very little to do with street photography, social documentation--or journalism, for that matter.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>and, on a more inspirational note...</p><div></div>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>My wife and I have now retired and due to the interesting photo opportunities we have seen over the years in the English magazines we had factored a trip to England in our retirement savings. However, we are not going to risk a legal hassle thousands of miles from home with nobody local to appeal to for reasonableness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I said before, that is unnecessary paranoia. It's on the same scale as some English people I know who think they would get robbed at gunpoint if they went to New York.</p>

<p>Yes, it might happen but it's not very likely is it?</p>

<p>Britain, like may other countries, relies on tourism and photography is part of that. </p>

<p>Read the proposal again. It concerns the taking of pictures of police officers likely to be of use to someone planning an act of terrorism. Is that what you were planning?</p>

[trex1]

American inner cities are extremely tough places. I have a handful of knife wounds to prove it. But that is nothing compared to reports from friends. I had a friend in college, in California who was beaten within an inch of his life, by minorities, chicano gangsters on a beach in LA. The guy who tried to intervene, again a minority, a black man, was shot and killed. My friend spent a year in hospital recovering, learning how to speak again, half his face was ripped off by the vicious beating he got.<p>

 

My guess, and that is all it is, was that the perps got their training in a prison somewhere.<p>

 

America just drips with violence. There are good guys and bad guys on both sides of the fence. Cops are not all bad or good, and poor kids in the hood are not all bad or good. The cops just have better equipment and the law on their side.<p>

 

Anyway, it is not the issue at hand. This is more of a case of the mission of the journalist, professional or amateur, like some of us, that like to document the street, but do not do it for a living. The journalist that got that killing on BART was some regular joe with a cell phone, right? <p>

 

I think the way the world is going the chips are stacked against the authorities, and the people are increasingly wielding power. But it will be a continual battle. Do we all get chips planted in our heads, and monitored 24/7 like the old George Lucas film, THX 1138, or do we make an enlightened democratic paradise......

[Brad_]

<p>>>> i hate to tell you guys, but the majority of the responses by protestors have been peaceful. </p>

<p>Huh? You don't have to tell us that, as that's a generally known fact supported and covered very well by the mainstream media. By a ton of stills and video (even from helicopters).</p>

<p>And again, once more:<br>

>>>i was an eyewitness, you probably got your information from TV...and you think you are qualified to determine what a police state is and isn't?</p>

<p>Since you feel you are more qualified to speak about what a police state is due to your eyewitness account, where are your photos supporting your position? On the one hand you hold yourself out as a citizen journalist, hold the mainstream news sources (who did an outstanding job) in contempt, yet you were there and didn't take any journalistic photos that speak to the situation. Or that support your thesis that Oakland is a police state. Was your camera broken? </p>

<p>Man, if witnessed all that bad stuff like you did, and had a camera with me as you did, that would be a dream come true. Somehow others who were there came home with lots of photos showing what was happening on the inside. And you're saying they got it all wrong?</p>

<p>When you make such a strong claim acting in the role as citizen journalist about being more qualified to speak about a situation, and being more qualified to determine what a police state is, then you'll have to understand that some will not take your statements at face value if you bring home no journalistic images backing that up. This is a <i>photography</i> forum after all.</p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Darius, you where right to try to put things back into perpective.</p>

<p>As I've said before, said amendment needs to be condemned and fought. It's born out of paranoia but a kneejerk reaction of some of you in declaring it a police state over there is just as paranoid. That's also true of Oakland because however tragic, in the end it's just a sad incident and that, lets face it falls somewhat short of the definition of a police state.</p>

<p>Might be a good idea if some of you read your own posts and think it over for some time. In the meantime I'm planning a visit to London later this year and whatever the outcome will be happy snapping away on the streets there exactly as I've done before.</p>

<p>Adesto nobis</p>

[ray .]

<p>Was the south before the 60's a police state? Was Kent State indication of a police state? Like so many issues argued on this forum, as in political campaigns, things are a little less black and white than people make them out to be. </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Was the south before the 60's a police state?</p>

<p>If you were black it certainly was. Systematic denial of education, voting, rights, jobs, etc, etc. The possibility of disssapearing in the middle of the night. Police/government abuse... </p>

<p>Is there some doubt in your mind about that?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>brad, give it up already. you lost me at "Holocaust."</p>

<p>btw, your definition of a police state above isn't all that different from what a lot of people in Oakland are going through right now. sure, there's no Jim Crow laws anymore, but plenty of systemic injustice to go around.</p>

<p>i dont think everyone should get their panties in a bunch over what constitutes a police state and what doesn't. that's akin to missing the forest for the trees. as i said already, the death of Oscar Grant was not an isolated incident. maybe this is hard for people removed from the communities most affected by this to understand, but blaming the messenger for the message and getting all self-righteous doesn't solve anything.</p>

<p>criticize me and my photos all you want Brad, but that still doesnt change the fact that you watched the events on TV and i was there. i know what that felt like. if you think that somehow you are qualified to define my experience from your comfortable armchair commentator position, think again. at the end of the day, you havent defined anything but your own perspective--and your willingness to twist words around and take them out of context to justify your own point of view. that's okay, though. keep on hating, you're only giving me more motivation and inspiration.</p>

<div></div>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> you lost me at "Holocaust."</p>

<p>I'm sorry. Perhaps that's because you are not aware of the daily systematic repression Holocaust survivors suffered living in a police state environment way before being taken to the camps. To learn more about that, talk to some of those survivors.</p>

<p>>>> if you think that somehow you are qualified to define my experience from your comfortable armchair commentator position, think again. </p>

<p>I don't and that's no where to be found in my posts. Another straw man. I'm simply asking to see photos that back YOUR claims. Since you were there with a camera with benefit of an eyewitness accounting as a citizen journalist.</p>

<p>>>> think again. at the end of the day, you havent defined anything but your own perspective</p>

<p>I beg your pardon? I haven't attempted to define anything. If someone makes a claim, I naturally like to see substantiation, rather than blindly taking something as fact on an internet forum. So far, your asking people to believe your assertion, as you were there with a camera as a citizen journalist, yet have no images to back up your claim. Show me something that backs that up - I really want to believe you. So far, I've seen a photo of a police line captioned with your "death camp" comment, a BART recruitment poster, and a bus shelter with broken glass.</p>

<p>>>> btw, your definition of a police state above isn't all that different...</p>

<p>A definition? Sheeesh.... Just a few factors that support the notion of a police state. Hardly a definition.</p>

<p>>>> keep on hating, </p>

<p>My, that is so silly.<br>

And you talk about twisting words...<br>

<br /></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>brad, can we move on already? this is beyond tired.</p>

[awillard87]

<p>WOW!!!! After reading that article i dont know what to say! Its completely absurd!!!!! Now people with power are trying to stop people from photographing? In a public place? I can understand that 'No-Smoking' in public places rule but thats dumb! And to detain people who look suspecious is dumb as well. The police (gaurenteed) will abuse their power under section 44 of the terriorist act. They might find it a good way to get a free grab if they want and i think that is dumb! I do believe that police should be able to stop someone if they look suspecious but PLEASE explain to me what a photographer taking pictures of a wedding would be "really" doing???? Thats just so DUMB! I just dont know what people are thinking these days! I think they are wrong and a lot of people are going to be treated 100% unfairly due to this!</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>how about you two going for coffee, bring your cameras, and wonder around aimlessly together?</p>