Yep, photography is still a crime.

[feren]

So most recently comes news about a D.C. official, who is also a freelance documentary photographer, being arrested for "assault on a police officer". Yeah, taking pictures certainly constitutes assault.

I support police officers, I really do. Having grown up with a father who worked in public safety, I was around a lot of police officers and fire fighters from before I could walk to the day I moved out of the state to attend college. I've known many officers and K-9 units for a long, long time -- still am friends with a number of them back home and in Illinois. I know there are two sides of every story. I know there are good cops and bad cops, just as there are respectful, law-abiding citizen photographers and brazen, do-anything-for-a-buck/attention douchebag photographers.

I'm going to be posting links to these stories more frequently becasue the abuse of power against photographers (seems we're either "possible terrorists" or "impeding an official investigation" by taking pictures of public servants performing their duties in public) is continuing or becoming increasingly frequent. It's still just as troubling to me as it was before I posted my last entry about this sort of thing, I'm just going to talk about it more frequently from this point forward.

For those who do not share my interests in photography and the politics surrounding it, I'll try to put my longer diatribes behind cut tags so you don't have to be bored by it.

Comments

[grabstein-69.livejournal.com]

Too late. Bored, already.

:P

It is kind of interesting to see how "public safety" has become much more of a do-what-I-say,-not-what-the-law-says. I'm not sure if there really is a great amount of abuse of power, or if it's just publicized more, now.

[feren.livejournal.com]

[Too late. Bored, already.]

When did I become your dancing monkey for entertainment? I don't recall getting a promotion... ;-)

[t is kind of interesting to see how "public safety" has become much more of a do-what-I-say,-not-what-the-law-says]

As you postulate, and as pointed out in the thread that was on my last post, this isn't new in any sense of the word. It's behavior that has been around for decades and decades. It do seem to me that it's becoming more blatant or transparent in nature, though. Either that or it's being spoken about and publicized more.

But back to the point about "public safety," I am getting tired of the same old grinds of public safety/9-11/etc being used as the rationalizations for the apologists who come to tell me I'm wrong for being upset about this type of behavior from the people who are here to serve US in a lawful manner.

[shanedoll.livejournal.com]

For "public safety" - YOU are not allowed to dance.

This will cause injury to many people. Eye injuries would be the first thing to occur. Most of these would be self-induced. An uncontrollable instinct to stop pain will cause people to gouge out their eyes.

People who carry around pens, and pencils will be the first to go.
Creative people will figure out a way to do this with a next.
MacGyver will need a tube sock, a flashlight, and an Africanized Bee (don't ask.)

Note: This is just the beginning. No one knows the full effect of an all out Feren dance, and not many people would survive this incident. For the public's safety: Please steer an inebriated Feren to the nearest DJ booth and give him a microphone. At least most ear plugs will keep the screaching sounds of a karaoke Feren from hurting you, and watching him make a fool out of himself IS priceless...

[shanedoll.livejournal.com]

On the real topic: The spirit of the law needs to be defined as much as the letter of the law. In the letter of the law states that we need to protect our public servants from attacks. The definition of an attack is where the spirit of the law needs to be defined. Judgment calls by both the public servant(s) and the person taking the picture should not be needed. If you walk into a crime scene (not saying she did,) then you should give the public servants the ability to do their job. That should not include you having to be told to not photograph people who have been detained / arrested. If I were detained / arrested / being held for questioning – I KNOW that I would not want my photograph taken at a crime scene. Especially if I was the person handcuffed and I could not protect my identity. In my opinion - I automatically look guilty. Therefore I would not take pictures of somebody in that situation.

Given the article I have read. I personally do not believe it is an assault, but I do not know what happened. I do believe as much as Feren does that there are good and bad police officers in the world. I also believe that this is true for everybody/profession – photographers included.

This is a unique situation: A police camera mounted near the scene might help or hurt her case. Depending on the photo’s taken by the device (or released; ) could make her look guilty even if she is innocent or visa-versa. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I say those words are in the eye of the beholder.

She will have her day in court, and may the truth come out.

[steelhelix.livejournal.com]

And people think I'm crazy when I talk about gun rights...