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

[georges_walker]

<p><strong>Here is a proposal to either avoid or reduce the abuse of the new laws enforcement regarless of the country/city we are shooting:</strong><br>

<strong>I will propose to the Photo Net administrator to place in a specific location of the site, a copy of the laws from every city that has already something against shooting as we did last century. Of course every copy of that part of the law should has a proper translation into English (more languages would be more useful), so each of us may print that information and carry with the photo equipment. In some cases when we show a copy ao some legal information, police may consider their manners, unfortunately this ida does not guarantee us that we can take pictures without interruption but it may help, specially if we are aware and documented about our own rights as citizens of the world.</strong><br>

<strong>Hope this suggestion may help and could be used as a peaceful reaction against abuse.</strong><br>

<strong></strong></p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Amanda, I believe thinking was criminalized in numerous antiterrorism statutes throughout the world.</p>

<p>The above referenced article doesn't fully explain the wedding photographer incident. After a bit of googling around, I found a couple of articles that explained better. Here's a quick quote from one:</p>

<p>"Jess Hurd was taking photos of a traveller wedding last Wednesday - on UN Human Rights Day - for a long term documentary project on the persecution of travellers when she had her camera taken from her and was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act."</p>

<p>The terminology was a bit unfamiliar to me, but "traveller" seems to refer to a person I would describe as a "gypsy" -- apparently mostly of Irish origin in the UK. This appears to be a much discriminated against group from what I've read. Anyway, Hurd was standing outside of a building, waiting for the exit of the wedding attendees, when she was nabbed. Apparently she was in sight of an airport somewhere, which was ostensibly why she was suspected of terrorist activities. (I suppose she was going to shoot down an airplane with her telephoto lens.) I imagine the "real" reason she was detained was that she was shooting a documentary on human rights abuses against an often despised ethnic group. As I suggested above, the police can use just about any flimsy excuse of a law to harrass someone they don't like. This is an intimidation tactic, and it works very well to discourage people from making trouble for the government -- not just the people who get detained, but other people who hear the news and don't want the same to happen to them.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Smith... <br /><br />"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. Yes, it might happen but it's not very likely is it?" <br /><br />Unnecessary paranoia? Not from the articles I've read in the English photo magazines that I subscribe to. The article that I think you were incorrectly referring to did also mention where a woman was detained while photographing a wedding. I used to live in San Diego, CA right next to Tijuana, BC, Mexico. Many of my friends like to go to TJ for cheap entertainment, reduced cost shopping, etc. This was in the 50s and 60s when things there were to my way of thinking, pretty bad. They made comments like yours to me. I smiled and waited as one by one they paid their way out of small scale or manufactured trouble. I think I made a good decision. When one factors in their police pay offs and legal bills I wonder how much money they saved shopping? When I was younger the type of English humbug police trouble I could innocently get into would have been an annoying, perhaps expensive inconvenience. At my age and declining health it could have serious effects. No, this late in my life I would not risk some Bobby thinking he was a Brown Shirt. If I was 50 or maybe even 60 maybe I would.</p>

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

<p>Yes, but from what I've heard from friends who have recently returned from Britten, Americans tourism there is discouraged. I think they would like American tourists dollars, but not enough to have American tourists on their soil. England as a sovereign country has every right to welcome whom they want and to discourage or exclude whom they want. Because I'm an American and a photographer I'm rather sure they won't miss me and would prefer that I stayed home anyway. On this point, I would also not want to impose against their wishes becoming just another "Ugly American".</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?"<br /><br />I referred to the articles I had read in Armature Photographer. I do not remember them mentioning photographs of police so I certainly did not have that in mind as I wrote my post. After wondering what you were referring to I read an article that someone else had linked to an earlier post in this thread. It referred to the photographing of police. Is that what you were refering to? If so, It was in the British Journal of Photography, a publication which I have never seen. So, your rather smarmy comment about asking if I was planning an act of terrorism through photographing police was just an ignorant non sequitur.</p>

<p> </p>

[Jeffrey L.T. von Glück]

<p>The genesis of this attitude started in the late 70s, early 80s, with the 'militarisation' of the local police. Things were vastly different in the 60s and early 70s. It was clear that the local PD were 'civilians' and part of the community, not an 'army of occupation'. I had relatives who worked for big-city dailies in NYC. During the unrest of the 60s, there was little restriction on what could be photographed. Reporters routinely hopped a ride <em>with the police </em>to the 'demonstration d'jour'. This could never happen today. The atmosphere is utterly different, suspicious and totally adversarial. Gone are the days when the local dailies had offices right off the squad rooms of the local police and everyone socialised, was on a first-name basis. Those days are gone forever.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>actually, jeffrey, the media tends to maintain a cozy relationship with the police for the most part. most of the crime stories you read in the newspaper come straight from the police blotter. which is why, when something comes up which contradicts the official police account--i.e. the video showing the actual shooting of Oscar Grant--it's really quite eye-opening.</p>

<p>wasn't it Dwight D. Eisenhower who coined the phrase "military-industrial complex" back in the 50s? these days, we have that determining US foreign policy, while the prison-industrial complex determines domestic policy. nice.</p>

<p>btw, in the Oakland protest on 1/7/09, after about two hours of a standoff as protestors milled about in the downtown and occasionally taunted cops verbally or assumed the position Grant was in when he was shot, when the riot cops finally got enough numbers to completely surround the protestors, they split the onlookers and media folks into two groups, with the protestors in the middle, and would not let people cross. some of the more grizzled photogs probably anticipated this and kept to the front of the police line, but most of the media were left behind as they started beating folks and tossing them into the back of the police van--in hindsight, i have to wonder if this was by design.</p>

<p>quite possibly as a result of this tactic, there's not a single shot in the Chron's photo coverage of any of the protestors getting beaten with nightsticks, thrown into police trucks or shot with beanbag guns--just a couple people getting arrested. so maybe Brad's recollection was a bit faulty after all. see for yourself here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL&o=</p>

<p>(btw, i've also heard eyewitness accounts from the RNC of credentialed media having their cameras snatched and/or being assaulted, and it is true that BART police attempted to confiscate cell phone cameras from witnesses in the Oscar Grant incident--you can hear them demanding the phones in the footage--but were unsuccessful. ) so whether or not we actually live in a police state right now, i think there is plenty of cause for concern and carefulness among photographers when it comes to police.</p>

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

[________1]

<p>With the exception of the Gaza shot this is really piss poor photography. All the hot air in this thread can't fix that--now, or ever.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> just a couple people getting arrested. so maybe Brad's recollection was a bit faulty after all. see for yourself here:</p>

<p>No, there were plenty of video and stills, not all from the Chron. Where are your photos of all the stuff you talk about. You claim to be an eyewitness and citizen journalist; yet you didn't feel like pressing the shutter on the stuff you witnessed?</p>

<p>Again, the mainstream media which you hold in contempt returned FAR better photos and coverage of what happened than what I see here.</p>

<p>But wait, they have a secret understanding with the police and no doubt Ron Dellums to go easy on factual reporting. Right...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Brad, feel free to post links to all the stills you seem to recall. lol. have to tell you, as much as our back-and-forth must mean to you, it's getting harder and harder to take your words at face value. you'd think one would be contrite when their ironclad convictions are exposed as mere conjecture, but not you. you're a trooper!</p>

<p> fyi, i never said i hold the MSM in contempt--wicker man argument, that, especially considering some of those outlets pay me--i merely stated there are things they left out which some might think important--obviously, you're not one of those people. sure, if you have 8-10 photographers with police radios working a scene, you're gonna get more coverage than any single photographer. but i have some shots they dont have, so...</p>

<p>OTOH, on some level, the mainstream media did its job--without KTVU's airing of the actual shooting AND later, the punch thrown by the second officer which preceded it, the context of the sequence of events which led to the shooting is far murkier. KTVU's basically hit BART like a slap in the face and really showed their total incompetence and failure to adequately take accountability for their mistake. and while i think the initial reportage was a bit exploitative, in the days after the riot, as more silence came from BART and with public interest growing exponentially, the MSM began to report from other perspectives. it was pretty interesting to see it all develop, actually--at first, the media kept showing one young black male jumping up and down on a police car--i must have seen that image 10-20 times--but on like day two, news reporters started talking about how the Berkeley anarchists acted as agent provacateurs, which i also witnessed. and i've stayed with the events, which were literally happening outside my window, so i expect i'll have a nice lil' gallery once the trial rolls around. lol. all i'm saying is, if your understanding of an incident is limited to armchair spectatorship, then you're only getting a smidgen of the real story. on the other hand, if you're actually there and you see what goes down, you are maybe a bit more aware of what the media's NOT saying about what really happened.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Unnecessary paranoia? Not from the articles I've read in the English photo magazines that I subscribe to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I maintain my claim of unecessary paranoia. Although we are talking about a law which erodes some civil liberties, and which we should be protesting about, the actual chance of you as an individual being charged under that law is negligible.</p>

<p>As I said before. Take the number of cases of photographers being wrongly cautioned or arrested and divide that by the number of people taking photographs in the country and you will have a very small number indeed. Certainly not enough to put someone off visiting this country and taking pictures.</p>

<p>Despite that, this law should be resisted and protested about as much as possible.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I referred to the articles I had read in Armature Photographer. I do not remember them mentioning photographs of police so I certainly did not have that in mind as I wrote my post. After wondering what you were referring to I read an article that someone else had linked to an earlier post in this thread. It referred to the photographing of police. Is that what you were refering to? If so, It was in the British Journal of Photography, a publication which I have never seen. So, your rather smarmy comment about asking if I was planning an act of terrorism through photographing police was just an ignorant non sequitur.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's what the first post is about.</p>

<p>Not coming to this country for fear of being arrested for taking pictures is as ridiculous as not getting into a car because you read a story about a car crash. In fact it's much more ridiculous because you are far more likely to crash your car than you are to get arrested for photography.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>Erik, nice that your changing your tune about the mainstream media and their coverage. KTVU is an excellent example of great coverage. And KGO as well. Hours of coverage and behind the scenes stories as well. And the Chron indeed had indeed an excellent set of stills as you pointed out in the link. Though for some reason you feel based on your eyewitness account they were not adequate. And you got what really happened.</p>

<p>Now, again, where are YOUR photos that support your eyewitness citizen journalist accounting that you've been talking about. You were there, witnessing all this bad stuff, but didn't click the shutter? Why?</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> all i'm saying is, if your understanding of an incident is limited to armchair spectatorship, then you're only getting a smidgen of the real story.</p>

<p>>>> on the other hand, if you're actually there and you see what goes down, you are maybe a bit more aware of what the media's NOT saying about what really happened.</p>

<p>OK. Please show us armchair spectators the "real story" with <em>your photos</em>. That's what photojournalism is about, right? You were "actually there and saw what went down," with a camera.</p>

<p>Imagine a Chron photographer coming back to his/her editor saying trust me, this is what happened I was actually there and saw what went down, even though I neglected to take photographs. It's true, trust me - and tell your public about it.</p>

[trex1]

<p>Hey, speaking of holocausts and such, I wonder if Gaza qualifies as a police state. I mean it is a prison in which people can be slaughtered at will and with impunity, by the policing state, Israel.....people in glass houses, you get the picture...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>" this is what happened I was actually there and saw what went down, even though I neglected to take photographs"</p>

<p>Brad (sigh), that's your twisted spin, not mine. apparently you live in a fantasy world. i got pics, thank you very much. and enough factual details for a photo-illustrated story published at Vibe.com, thank you very much. if getting published (and paid) for a night's work doesn't qualify as photojournalism to you, it's no skin off my back. as for objectivity, i reported what i saw. sure, i have a personal interest in this story because this is my community we're talking about--when the TV crews go home, i have to live in Oakland-- but it's not like i taunted the cops or broke any store windows myself. i simply followed the sequence of events as they happened, though i can't say i was in two places at one time (lol). meanwhile, you watched TV and complained about people complaining about the erosion of civil rights as well as many confusing or downright contradictory statements. (you might want to take another look at this thread's title, btw). one thing i observed that i didnt see in any media accounts was that the standoff was mostly peaceful until the protestors got pushed down 14th street--which is when they started breaking stuff as they retreated. some of them may have had vandalism in mind, but it's equally likely they may have been reacting to seeing their friends getting beaten and arrested. again, nobody has pics of the riots cops at their worst, not the Chron, nobody -- for the reasons mentioned above. you say you've seen shots of the riot squad in action, with nightsticks, etc.? post some links or get off the pot.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Brad (sigh), that's your twisted spin, not mine. apparently you live in a fantasy world. i got pics, thank you very much. </p>

<p>Spin? You claim the mainstream media got it wrong. And that you were an eyewitness to what really happened.</p>

<p>Let's see you photos. That's very simple; hardly a <i>spin</i>...</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> meanwhile, you watched TV and complained about people complaining about the erosion of civil rights as well as many confusing or downright contradictory statements. (you might want to take another look at this thread's title, btw).</p>

<p>Where was that? I suggested the OP talk to people who experienced living in a real police state; before using the term so casually. And I'm asking again, for you to show your photos of the abuse you witnessed and what actually happened. That's a very simple request. Hardly a complaint. I would really like to see them.</p>

<p>And where specifically did I complain about people complaining about erosion of civil rights? Please be specific.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> <strong>you say you've seen shots of the riot squad in action, with nightsticks, etc.? post some links or get off the pot.</strong><br /> <br /> Sheesh, I found a bunch after looking for just a minute. Here's one, a 7 minute clip: <br /> <br /> http://www.ktvu.com/video/18435532/index.html <br /> <br /> I can post others if you want. <br /> <br /> What is most interesting is the number of videographers/photographers covering this story in the middle of it all, while it was happening. Since you were there as an eyewitness and know what really happened (as opposed to the mainstream media), perhaps you can post some of your photos showing that. I am genuinely curious and would like to learn. <br /> <br /> Let's see your coverage...</p>

[sprouty]

<p><em>"...again, nobody has pics of the riots cops at their worst, not the Chron, nobody...</em><br>

 

<p>Brad posts link...OH SNAP!</p>

</p>

[________1]

<p>www.vibe.com, "EXLUSIVE: Chris Brown's Stylist Speaks Out"... LOL.</p>

[akochanowski]

<p>Here are the shots in question. Koudelka in Prague in '68 it ain't.<br>

http://www.vibe.com/news/online_exclusives/2009/01/a_report_from_the_oakland_rally_and_riots/<br>

(Eric, you're obviously too young, but my reference was to Josef Koudelka's photos of the Soviets invading Prague in '68, a famous bit of actual photojournalism. That time and place was a bit closer to a police state than Oakland, California, 2009. And yes, there were real tanks, real guns, and real people arrested and executed for seeking freedom. Being clueless about the difference between something like that and people being allowed to exercise First Amendment privileges makes you sound...dumb.)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"<em>"...again, nobody has pics of the riots cops at their worst, not the Chron, nobody..."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

sp, looks like you 'snapped' too soon...</p>

<p>anyone actually watch the KTVU link, which shows video, not stills, btw, some of it aerial footage from a helicopter? nothing i havent seen before: some folks being arrested and/or shoved, protestors kicking a USA Today newsrack, the same burning car, people jumping on a cop car with the cops nowhere in sight, a couple flashes of tear gas, an interview with city councilman de la fuente, a press conference from dellums, a woman hitting a store window with a stick, etc. the newscaster mentions riot cops @14th and the standoff, all of which i have stills of, but you dont see the armored car, much less cops emerging from it and another vehicle with nightsticks at the ready. you do see some photographers scurrying to keep up with the cops, but there were no photographers in-between the advancing line of police and the first line of protestors, for the obvious reason that it was pretty dangerous at that point, especially once they fired the gas. (i dont know about you, but the firing of tear gas on protesters is pretty much consistant with my idea of what i would expect from a police state, as is the fact that BART has yet to issue an offcial statement about what happened on New Years Eve, more than a month after the fact). if anyone is arguing that i should have waded into a cloud of noxious smoke and risked bodily injury to get a shot no one else has, i would say do it yourself and see how you like it. i may be opinionated, but i'm not stupid.lol.</p>

<p>in any event, my understanding of street photography is that it's about capturing the moment, not commenting from cyberspace. you can certainly get better shots from the scene than you can from your living room. lol.</p>

<p>once again, i'd like to remind people of the title of this thread: "This is what happens when people stop standing up for their rights," and keep in mind that documenting police actions, protests, etc, whether professionally or as an amateur is one way of standing up for those rights. without the cel phone video of the shooting, there would have been nothing to suggest excessive force was used. and had people complied with police requests to turn over their phones, key evidence might have been lost or erased. without the protestors, the cop would not have been charged with murder. whether it was an accident or not should come out at trial, but lets remember that without video evidence, officers were aquitted in the Sean Bell and amadou diallo killings in NYC, which were very similar to the Oscar Grant shooting in that all three men were unarmed.</p>

<p>so again, if there are stills of people actually getting beatdown that do exist, feel free to post. oh, and here's that vibe link, in case you're over Chris Bown's stylist (hey they did put Obama on the cover and covered the RNC, so it's not like it's total fluff. lol.). <a href="http://www.vibe.com/news/online_exclusives/2009/01/a_report_from_the_oakland_rally_and_riots/">http://www.vibe.com/news/online_exclusives/2009/01/a_report_from_the_oakland_rally_and_riots/</a></p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"yes, there were real tanks, real guns, and real people arrested and executed for seeking freedom....That time and place was a bit closer to a police state than Oakland, California, 2009"</p>

<p>no doubt Prague in '68 or Gaza in 2009 are deadlier than Oakland, but is it going to have to come to that, andy? i sure hope not. but c'mon, what more do you want? i showed you the armored car. i showed you the guns, and here's the execution: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVsncZ7K584">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVsncZ7K584</a></p>

<p>and just for kicks, here's a link to an FBI probe into widespread corruption and misconduct in the OPD: <a href="http://www.ktvu.com/news/18545506/detail.html">http://www.ktvu.com/news/18545506/detail.html</a></p>

<p>how close do we need to come to a police state, anyway? if you live in oakland, and you are a certain color, you shouldnt have to be afraid that police will shoot you in the back, right? or am i "too young" to understand the basic principals of civil rights too?</p>

[ray .]

<p>I don't think I'd feel all that safe exercising my first amendment rights at that scene if it meant laying on my belly with arms behind my back- especially if I were a black man. All that anger and vandalizing doesn't happen because people out of clear blue sky just figured it'd be a fun thing to do that day. It's not particularly smart to destroy things, but it's the kind of thing people tend to do when they feel utterly frustrated and powerless. </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> anyone actually watch the KTVU link, which shows video, not stills, btw, some of it aerial footage from a helicopter? nothing i havent seen before: some folks being arrested and/or shoved,</p>

<p>Yep. All the stuff you said that didn't exist; and now you're saying you've seen it before:</p>

<p>"you say you've seen shots of the riot squad in action, with nightsticks, etc.? post some links or get off the pot."</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>"...again, nobody has pics of the riots cops at their worst, not the Chron, nobody..."</b></p>

<p>That helicopter must have been five feet off the ground covering all that stuff...</p>

<p>Once again, where are YOUR photos showing the real story as an eyewitness? You're the citizen journalist witnessing the real action, right? The stuff that the mainstream media got all wrong...</p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

[ray .]

<p>Eric, don't feed the animals. </p>