British photographer arrested for street shooting Video embedded in article

[harryjacksonjr]

<p>I've been in this business 40 years; I was in Chicago in 68 as a punk kid, and a bunch of other places as a journalist. It never ceases to amaze me that cops will spend more time trying to quiet the press than solve a problem, and that doesn't matter if its social unrest or simple crime.<br>

I once was escorted out of a police station for asking questions about gang crime! Maybe the two officers might have had less to worry about had they been out working on gang crimes instead of walking me to my car.<br>

My favorite story happened in a really silly situation in a city in Kansas. A cop arrested a photographer (not me) for shooting photos at a funeral. From the street, not in the cemetery. That was in the morning. He was arraigned late that day and the three or four of us were there. The defense attorney asked for a dismissal because there was no law against what he was doing. The prosecutor didn't answer because had he, he would have been on the outs with the cops. The judge said, "I can't dismiss charges that don't exist. You're free to go."<br>

h<br>

Will we ever grow up?</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>To A.Thomas Burke, Jr. I am not afraid to put my name to endorse the behavior involved, even though it is not behavior I would personally have engaged it, because for me it would not have been expedient . . . or as a foreigner in the UK would it have particularly been wise as I would not have known the law as well as the suspected 'offender'.<br>

Thank you very much for the endorsement . . . . it is small things like that that 'make a difference . . . . and over time small things do add up. <br>

Too many times people fail to speak up, or simply fail to connect with others in like situations; I've been in small number of situations, but they can be intimidating, and I am not easily intimidated.<br>

Often they happen in foreign countries . . . which can be doubly, quadruply (or more) intimidating. Try be hustled into a police paddy wagon in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine while cops (militia) try to sort out whether the woman punched my camera (she did as a witness told them) or I reflexively smashed her back with my D2Xs, drawing a lot of blood) <br>

Her husband, who intervened, was arrested, and apparently after a beating came out to apologize (In English which I am sure he did not understand) for his assault on me (for wrong reasons since she was entirely in the wrong.<br>

I had not even photographed the woman when she punched my camera which in turn hit my face hard and almost broke the bridge of my nose. (I did not press charges, or he would have been sent to prison/her also, and Ukrainian prisons are not places to do 'easy time'.) (that earned respect from the cops, as I explained that they were simple people, peasants really, who just made a very bad mistake and I wanted to be a good guest in their country)<br>

Or the same in Paris . . . . .(only to have les flics (cops) apologize for the behavior of foreign-born Parisians, offer to drop me off at a place of my convenience (from their paddy wagon) with the parting words 'bienvenue a Paris (Welcome to Paris), sardonically, after an Arab-born Parisian woman started yelling at me after she THOUGHT I photographed her beauty shop (I hadn't again), but she was screaming in French and Arabic in an African/Arabic district (XIX Arrondisement) which was a little hairy for me. My behavior had been impeccable even for the neighborhood, and I had NOT photographed her ore her shop . . . again a case of a person with an 'attitude' looking for someone to make trouble with . . . and sometimes that person can be a person with a camera walking around . . . especially if that person obviously is a stranger.<br>

Notice in both instances, POLICE CAME AND AIDED ME, and I do not automatically assume anything wrong about police since my street behavior is pretty impeccable. I usually have wonderful relations on the street and the odd incident usually involves someone with an 'attitude' looking to create an incident - possibly after a domestic fight, loss of a job, etc., as I have absolutely NO chip on my shoulder.<br>

Even if there is an incident . . .three blocks later, I resume my former happy-go-lucky attitude . . . .undeterred . . . as I am confident in my street manners.<br>

But the cited Section 2, 'Anti-Social Behavior' might so easily be turned against me or any 'street' photographer with large or obtrusive cameras or just obtrusive in their photography, for I have been known to suddenly turn around, camera pre-set, and raise camera, frame and shoot an unknowing and unsuspecting subject in less than one second, then turn around again, reset, turn a second time and reframe and re-shoot. This can be interesting and appear different, but not threatening to anyone who is of sound mind and intellect.<br>

Or I might slide behind a street lamp post then turn quickly to take a shot or the same with a building corner, just to get the candid shot . . . as people immediately so often change their behavior when they believe they're being observed or photographed AND the object of most of my STREET photography is to take unadulterated photography -- unaffected by people becoming poseurs or somehow affecting 'attitudes' that in one way or another reflect their awareness of my presence.<br>

(this is not always the case, but very often so)<br>

(and often when I do so successfully, I may walk up to such individuals and show them my handiwork. So often when I do so I make the most wonderful acquaintanceships and sometimes friends who then visit my photos (on this site and another), and often if I return to their neighborhood weeks, months or even a year later, they sometimes stop me, ask 'do you remember me?' (I often do not), then point out a photo of mine from my collection/portfolio by description that they particularly liked. <br>

Life's like that. <br>

I share with my subjects when I can . . . . not always but if I have the time, feel good about doing so and they are not appearing too deranged or drunk.<br>

Taking photos surreptitiously often strikes passersby as 'anti-social' especially those who self-appoint them as 'social arbiters', but so very many times the subjects are perfectly at ease and happy to have me capture their actions (even their absurd ones) in a good photo in situations that set the 'arbiters' hair on end. <br>

The 'self-appointed arbiters are often looking to be like 'cops' to enforce their own world view on others, and a photographer is an easy target, even when the subject has no objection.<br>

You'd be surprised at how good people 'on the street' are at understanding interesting and unusual photos that sometimes might puzzle photo critics on this site . . . never underestimate the majority of the public about photos involving them (there are notable exceptions though) <br>

The enemy is the self-appointed 'social arbiter' who views the 'street photographer's behavior and misunderstands it as somehow being akin to the very regrettable behavior of the very anti-social paparazzi.<br>

And I make no bones about it, paparazzi engage in the most anti-social behavior, and I tell all around me when many ask 'are you paparazzi? 'NO, most paparazzi are like scum in the way they behave. . . . not all, but most . . they break traffic laws, hound celebrities, swarm people, and I will NOT take a celebrity photo at all unless absolutely invited. (I've had many opportunities, and my cameras just point to the ground when say, Heidi Klum, is nearby . . . despite people urging me on.)<br>

Very few real 'street' photographers of skill and experience have not been accosted or stopped by some policeman or more frequently security guards asking 'what are you doing?'<br>

In the USA on the West Coast the police in major cities are seldom a problem but in small towns, the problem can be greater, especially if they take a dislike to you -- worse if your auto looks like some local scoundrel's<br>

'Security guards' are taken in the US generally from a pretty low level of education for the younger, non-retired guards. Many are cop wanna-bes and very often past (or future) police rejects (and often for good reason), but have some authority and are armed with rules, for say, a shopping mall, or store, that say 'no photography' and they tend to overplay their authority.<br>

Skillful street photographers (as the party this article is about) know how to comport themselves around such people, and I certainly believe I do . . . so small encounters do not escalate (I am a law graduate . . . .cum laude from a decent law school and long ago practiced law for nearly two decades, so in the USA I do know my rights in general . . . but often don't 'stand on my rights but rely on more 'common sense' and 'street smarts' and good behavior always with interfacing with authority. That does not mean I give up my rights, though, and I am vigilant about them.<br>

The point is that sometimes when for no particular reason people in authority do 'mess with' photographers going about their business deciding somehow that innocent photographer behavior in taking their photos is 'anti-social', and thus 'offending' someone, and thus hassle the photographer, it does not hurt to have one photographer take a stand, be taken to the station house for refusing to provide 'details', then go on television and help highlight foolish police behavior.<br>

Police here simply could not articulate a reasonable suspicion of illegal behavior other than saying that taking photos was somehow anti-social. It was foolishness.<br>

It also was petty, and if the photographer had simply given 'details' they would probably have 'gone away' but he had a right and decided to stand on them.<br>

In doing so, he made an example of those who hassle photographers for having big cameras and using them.<br>

Everyone who has a camera phone is a potential photographer, but they are almost never hassled.<br>

People with big cameras are often singled out by police and security people thinking (in an illogical and warped manner) that somehow the big cameras make them a 'security threat'.<br>

Real 'bad people' almost certainly would have high resolution point and shoots or camera phones and no one would even notice them . . . not huge cameras with huge lenses hanging around their necks.<br>

It is the illogic of singling out those of us hobbyists and genuine news gatherers with large cameras who take photos for enjoyment 'on the street' that suggests we are singled out not for suspicion of being 'security threats' but of being hassled because somehow someone is just pretty misinformed and judgmental because of their own stupid prejudices.<br>

Perhaps they saw paparazzi at work, then decided that anyone with a large camera was similarly anti-social and deserved ill treatment-- an illogical and common generalization.<br>

From time to time it does not hurt to show them that paparazzi are anti-social but someone with a large camera otherwise comporting themselves well, is not a threat . . . to anyone . . . and that there are an awful lot of people with large cameras who need to have a spokesperson occasionally.<br>

[Although I will be surreptitious sometimes, there is no suggestion the photographer involved in the UK incident was doing anything surreptitiously at all . . . a major plus for his making his a 'test case', and a major reason I will avoid trying to make anything I do a 'test'.]<br>

I hope this explains the 'worth' of what this worthy photographer has done.<br>

It is nto what I would have done, but my hat is off to him.<br>

He has helped protect my fuure right to take photographs by helping keep that absurd generalization between 'large camera' and 'anti-social behavior' from being perpetuated.<br>

From my first year I had a camera, and when I photographed (1) the student takeover at Columbia University (my Alma Mater), San Francisco State, Berkeley and the Viet Nam War (I Corps and Saigon), I formed the opinion, that police often targeted those with cameras for immediate attention, especially when they were engaged in wrongdoing . . . and when they were engaged in wrongdoing, the first thing they tried to destroy was the cameras that would provide that proof.<br>

That official suspicion of 'large' cameras continues to this day, I think.<br>

John (Crosley) </p>

[michael s.]

<p>Just yesterday (March 10, 2010) the UK publication <em>"Amateur Photographer"</em> reported on its website on a statement by the UK's Home Office Minister David Hanson following his meeting with photographers. Hanson, whose portfolio includes counter-terrorism in the UK, said he wanted to:</p>

<p><strong>" ... reassure all those concerned with this issue that we have no intention of Section 44 or Section 58a [of the Terrorism Act] being used to stop ordinary people taking photos or to curtail legitimate journalistic activity."</strong></p>

<p>The article is here:<br>

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Stop_and_search_and_photographers_Anti_terrorism_minister_issues_statement_news_295778.html</p>

<p>I started a thread over on Street/Doc before reading the comments on this thread, and realizing the news would likely be germane here.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. S...</p>

<p>Thank you for the reference. However that kind of statement has never stopped the CS Officers before (and I do mean CS). </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Crosley......<br>

 <br>

Lots of good suggestions and information. <br>

 <br>

However, why are we having to figure out how to avoid police interference with a perfectly reasonable and legal pursuit?  Should one have to have a law degree to effectively evade harrassment?  In late 1930s Germany men and boys were required to drop their pants on public streets to see if they were circumsized (few non-Jews were circumsized in Europe in those days).  How long before we in the "free" world will have to walk around in public places with our penises hanging out of our zippers to keep from being asked for our "details"  Hmmm, would using a lifelike imitation kind of be like using a stealthy cell phone? <br>

 <br>

I can just see the future now. <br>

 <br>

C.S. officer...Madam, I see you're heading for the ladie's room.  May I have your details? <br>

 <br>

Woman...Details?  I don't have time for details, I have to go real bad. <br>

 <br>

C.S. Officer..."Real bad?"  Please give me the details on "real bad." <br>

 <br>

Woman...Dammit.  If I don't get in there quick, I'm going to have to s**t right here on the street.   <br>

 <br>

C.S. Officer...Madam, I need your details.  Is it to be number one or number two? <br>

 <br>

Woman...Well, if I'm worried about s**ting right here, you might be able to guess it's number two.<br>

 <br>

C.S. Officer...I see, madam.  Have you filled out your application? <br>

 <br>

Woman...(sounding more desperate)  What application? <br>

 <br>

C.S. officer...Madam, for the permit. <br>

 <br>

Woman...(now even more desperate)  What permit? <br>

 <br>

C.S. officer...Madam, women doing such things as using the restroom need to have a permit. <br>

 <br>

Woman...Oh my God!  Quick, where do I get the permit? <br>

 <br>

C.S. officer...Madam, at the office right over there. <br>

 <br>

Woman...Please.  I've got to go and the office has a "closed" sign in the window. <br>

 <br>

C.S. Officer...Madam, yes, they've just opened it.  It hasn't been staffed yet. <br>

 <br>

Woman...I don't think I can hold it any longer. <br>

 <br>

C.S. Officer...Sorry, madam, we need your details before we can allow you to use the restroom. <br>

 <br>

Woman...I can't wait any longer.  You may consider what is accumulating on the street below my details. <br>

 <br>

A.T. Burke <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 </p>

[johncrosley]

<p>A.T. Burke, Jr.:<br>

Bravo.<br>

I wrote of practicalities, as I often am a traveler in foreign countries where 'rights' are unknown or insecure. It happened five days ago, again, confronted by two polizei, brought by disgruntled employees of an airline trying to settle a score after I complained (calmly, carefully, and intelligently) of awful service for handling of disabled -- me -- a continual issue which has involved a long history of physical and more mistreatment of me, a disabled person.<br>

All in a country where a group of individuals who knew they were in 'hot water' over their mistreatment believes 'photographing strangers' 'without express permission' is illegal.<br>

So they sent two polizei over to 'take me away' just before my continuing flight after dawdling for two to three hours during my connection doing nothing, timing their polizei maneuver to maximally disrupt my time and travels if they were successful.<br>

But they failed, and worse the polizei were unhappy with them because when they came to 'take me somewhere with them' they found I was wheelchair bound (which the the complainers knew since they were in charge of my wheelchair transport, but conveniently forgot to mention to the polizei). <br>

The whole maneuver was stillborn.<br>

And I as so polite to the approaching polizei, ''Herzlich Welkom!' I told them. <br>

I had seen them conferring and surmised the visit was to try quash my civil complaints through made-up complaints about my photography, which really was not the issue at all -- just a made up excuse to harass me, and try to forestall a complaint to higher-ups that might cost them their jobs or their company a huge contract, or even start a huge civil suit against their parent company (and them) over disabled rights.<br>

Polizei went away quickly and told them to mind their own business, and then the boss of the contracting firm had the gall to send with his wheelchair attendant his card with the verbal message for me to contact the boss about such matters (mind you, right after he tried and failed to institute my arrest but).<br>

He was too craven to deliver the message in person or just to walk up to me, as he easily could have done, as I am cogent, polite and coherent . . . . and when people deal with me fairly and do not tell lies, and even if they do engage in misbehavior I file it away for the future . . . and do not fly into rages). Moreover I am wheelchair bound. What harm can I cause?<br>

I do know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.<br>

Practicalities are very important at times. <br>

So is the behavior exemplified by the UK photographer engaged in interface with the local constabulary. <br>

Be polite.<br>

I did give my passport for ID (it's a foreign country), but now the harm to me of which I complain has just gotten worse, and those who would use my photography as an excuse to arrest me to forestall claims against them have dug their own graves even deeper. (this is a clear metaphor for anyone who will try to twist words . . . as may happen . . . .)<br>

This was a case where mistreatment complaints in one area (disability care) were sought to be forestalled by complaints against by making complaints about me and my style of photography.<br>

It backfired.<br>

I do not yet name the firm, out of discretion. <br>

If I do, it will be on television with a team of reporters.<br>

I opened my e-mail this morning and got a missive from a kindly man involved personally in dealing with me, asking why I had been so nice to him in the midst of his boss's claims they do not like me, and wrote him back in essence saying I treat others who do not engage in what I view as wrongful behavior, fairly, and I judge each person on merits. <br>

He had not mistreated me and was treated with warmest regards and best humor, which had troubled him (he said since Tuesday until Saturday, which is why he wrote me). He saw that my behavior toward him had been impeccable despite hearing others complaining . . . and asked why? (he also complimented my photography . . . )<br>

I told him. <br>

He had found my behavior he had experienced faultless, apparently and could not reconcile the difference between what he was 'told' and what he experienced. <br>

For good reason.<br>

I had been 'set up' for an arrest or harassment for street photography (which hadn't really taken place or was not illegal) there under the privacy laws of that land by those who knew I was to complain about their injurious service - a form of pre-emptory retribution. (best defense is a good offense!)<br>

I too have taken 'stands' before.<br>

And will again, I presume.<br>

I dislike doing so, and one must be prepared either for small to severe inconvenience (or in one case, potential destruction or confiscation of my entire portfolio of digital work on numerous hard drives in the trunk of my car, which was threatened to be 'impounded' so I could be 'questioned' or the alternative was to have my camera's few photos 'deleted' which means they were not really troubling in the first place, merely to assuage a passerby, who was 'out of control' and who was not even on the photos.<br>

(there was absolutely no reason in both cases to 'question' me, as the issue of deletion in the first case involved a testosterone-laden threat by a lieutenant just to vent his pique at my refusal to 'cooperate' with an unlawful order at first, to delete captures others didn't want me to have (legal and not offensive captures) rather than comply with an illegal request<br>

Potential threatened impound of my car and consequent threat of loss of my entire portfolio (then uncopied or backed up at least in part|) would have destroyed part of my life. <br>

I made a prudent decision.<br>

I let him think he got his way.<br>

Some times there are hard choices, and the principled choice is the principled choice.<br>

To get to the Supreme Court it may take a decade, and that Court doesn't take but a fraction of every important case -- just ones that either resolve conflicts among the Federal Circuits which decide them, resolve important 'federal' issues, and for various other reasons, but they're overworked and often try to 'ditch' litigants who got raw deals rather than resolving their matters. Also, they want their issues clear-cut on unresolved Constitutional Grounds, and not 'messy' and involved with lots of side-tracking issues and facts. <br>

Few cases involve such scenarios and representation to that level can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. . . . . .if one is not indigent.<br>

Worse, look at the makeup of the current post-Bush US Supreme Court and try to predict a pro-anything outcome . . . then make a choice to 'take a stand' that will depend on going that far and prevailing for the rights of 'freedom' and the 'common man'.<br>

Now imagine you're in a foreign country, the cops make their 'own law' on the street, much as US cops did in the '30s and '40s, in places like Los Angeles, Chicago and Boston, then predict what your principled stand is going to accomplish.<br>

I never forget that cops have guns, badges, billy clubs, mace (often the practiced use of embellishing 'truths' to make it sound like they're 'in the right' even when not), and the ability to use all these weapons against you, as professional witnesses in court against you, and not everyone has a video of the evidence.<br>

Smart-mouthing any cop is simply bad business, and failing to comply with any request (legal or unlawful if not 100% willing to take the worst consequences is simply bad judgment.<br>

Nevertheless, BRAVO!<br>

Quick, I need an application just like your woman, and I do mean quick <br>

Like yesterday!<br>

********<br>

As to keeping and vindicating 'rights' remember slavery in the USA's South did not end with the end of the Civil War, it ended with the outset of World War II.<br>

Industrial Slavery existed in the South until then, with the official blessing of cops, industry and the Courts and was abolished by Franklin Roosevelt to prevent Hitler and the Japanese from using that to turn our black citizens against our country by Axis forces. This is not conjecture but documented historical 'fact' - before challenging read latest historical evidence and research, unchallenged so far as I am aware, even though relatively 'new' (to white folks at least).<br>

After that, even though non-white citizens had rights, they could not exercise them until after we of the Civil Rights movement (I in a very small way) did our thing in the '60s, 70s, and '80s).<br>

Getting justice is both not perfect and can be time consuming; its pursuit can follow you into the grave and make a bitter person out of you if you expect it in every circumstance.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Going back to the original article it just looks to me like the '<em>Anti-Terrorist Laws are not to be used for arresting annoying photographers</em> ' message has not yet traveeled as far north as Accrington. This issue has been in the news relating to some London incidents. The London Met Police appear to have got the messge out to their people that the use of the Anti-Terror Laws is inappropriate for these situations and guidance has been issued by police services and the Home Office to that effect. Hopefully someone in the upper echelons will take aside those police involved and re-state the guidlines already issued.</p>