Author Topic: Police Say They Can Detain Photographers (Read 2188 times)

Hugo Chavez · « **on:** August 19, 2011, 11:28:46 AM »

from the police-as-art-critics dept

Apparently the police in Long Beach, California, have a policy that says if a police officer determines that a photographer is taking photos of something with "no apparent esthetic value," they can detain them. This revelation came after photographer Sander Roscoe Wolff was taking the following photo:

cont...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/23584515540/police-say-they-can-detain-photographers-if-their-photographs-have-no-apparent-esthetic-value.shtml

Roger Bacon · « **Reply #1 on:** August 19, 2011, 11:30:27 AM »

Welcome to America...

240 is Back · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2011, 11:32:22 AM »

Note to self...

if you videotape a cop beating someone,
hit 'send' and send it to your home email before they start whooping your ass.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #3 on:** August 19, 2011, 11:35:49 AM »

detaining fine art photographers lol... This is a strange new low even for cops.

Roger Bacon · « **Reply #4 on:** August 19, 2011, 11:41:13 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on August 19, 2011, 11:32:22 AM

Note to self...

if you videotape a cop beating someone,
hit 'send' and send it to your home email before they start whooping your ass.

HAHA!!

Unless the cop is beating a bodybuilder, there's certainly no apparent esthetic value!

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 19, 2011, 12:22:38 PM »

9/11 anniversary is approaching. What we KNOW about terrorists is that they often case targets prior to attacking. So if a cop sees someone taking photographs of a location that isn't ordinarily photographed, it may be in our best interest for him to put down the donut and check it out. Someone taking pictures of a major bridge may be and probably will be perfectly innocent. Doesn't hurt to stop and ask him what's up. Their concern is not that someone is taking a photograph, but that someone may be in the early stages of gathering intel on a possible target. Or....we could just tell cops not to bother with any of that.. we'll probably be okay

garebear · « **Reply #6 on:** August 19, 2011, 12:26:44 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on August 19, 2011, 12:22:38 PM

9/11 anniversary is approaching. What we KNOW about terrorists is that they often case targets prior to attacking. So if a cop sees someone taking photographs of a location that isn't ordinarily photographed, it may be in our best interest for him to put down the donut and check it out. Someone taking pictures of a major bridge may be and probably will be perfectly innocent. Doesn't hurt to stop and ask him what's up. Their concern is not that someone is taking a photograph, but that someone may be in the early stages of gathering intel on a possible target. Or....we could just tell cops not to bother with any of that.. we'll probably be okay

Good post.

How about we just outlaw pictures altogether? Then the terrorists can't use them.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 19, 2011, 12:31:42 PM »

Quote from: garebear on August 19, 2011, 12:26:44 PM

Good post.

How about we just outlaw pictures altogether? Then the terrorists can't use them.

Finally! Someone with some common sense!

garebear · « **Reply #8 on:** August 19, 2011, 12:36:18 PM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 19, 2011, 11:28:46 AM

from the police-as-art-critics dept

Apparently the police in Long Beach, California, have a policy that says if a police officer determines that a photographer is taking photos of something with "no apparent esthetic value," they can detain them. This revelation came after photographer Sander Roscoe Wolff was taking the following photo:

cont...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/23584515540/police-say-they-can-detain-photographers-if-their-photographs-have-no-apparent-esthetic-value.shtml

I like that picture. What were the cops even worried about, that they would blow that condemned building up or what?

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #9 on:** August 19, 2011, 12:36:53 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on August 19, 2011, 12:31:42 PM

Finally! Someone with some common sense!

WTF... $:-\$

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 19, 2011, 12:39:55 PM »

Quote from: garebear on August 19, 2011, 12:36:18 PM

I like that picture. What were the cops even worried about, that they would blow that condemned building up or what?

Is that what it was? A condemned building?

garebear · « **Reply #11 on:** August 19, 2011, 12:43:05 PM »

Just guessing. My point was that it doesn't look like some kind of terrorist target anyway.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #12 on:** August 19, 2011, 01:00:26 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on August 19, 2011, 12:39:55 PM

Is that what it was? A condemned building?

yes, detained over photographing junk.

That is the photograph he was detained for lol

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #13 on:** August 19, 2011, 01:05:11 PM »

Plus, look how stupid this is? They're basically saying they'll detain you and check you out if you're photographing shit nobody cares about. Ok, that's kind of the opposite from what Agnostic just said. tourists take pictures of the shit that would be targeted by terrorists. These cops will check you out if you're not doing that and are off photographing fire hydrants or some shit lol...

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 19, 2011, 01:08:35 PM »

Quote from: garebear on August 19, 2011, 12:43:05 PM

Just guessing. My point was that it doesn't look like some kind of terrorist target anyway.

Turns out it was a refinery...

In the article I found it says "for taking pictures of a refinery".. Then the Chief comments on it.

"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery,” says [Police Chief Jim McDonnell], “it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual.” McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters.

McDonnell says that while there is no police training specific to determining whether a photographer’s subject has “apparent esthetic value,” officers make such judgments “based on their overall training and experience” and will generally approach photographers not engaging in “regular tourist behavior.”

I'm trying to get worked up over this... just cant seem to do it...

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 19, 2011, 01:12:12 PM »

I know that around my city there are water treatment plants, and various other things that are on a list of places to be on a higher level of alert around. It stands to reason if someone is taking photos of something like that.. a place and or thing not normally of interest to visitors but could be of intererest to terrorist, we would be derelict in our duties NOT to look into it. Agree?

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #16 on:** August 19, 2011, 01:16:37 PM »

LOL, I think the picture is of this abandoned oil refinery in long beach.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edsel12/4279663734/

If he were taking pictures of an active oil refinery that close, he would have needed permission to be on the property and there would be something to actually charge him with, right?

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 19, 2011, 01:34:51 PM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 19, 2011, 01:16:37 PM

LOL, I think the picture is of this abandoned oil refinery in long beach.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edsel12/4279663734/

If he were taking pictures of an active oil refinery that close, he would have needed permission to be on the property and there would be something to actually charge him with, right?

I don't know how close you have to be with lenses these days but if they were on the property of an abandoned refinery, they would require the same permission.

I guess my point is this, cops or at least cops I work with don't care about someone taking pictures of benign things like the article tries to make it out. We really have other things we could be doing like eating, or visiting our buddies or beating jay walkers (said in jest because I know that is what a lot of people think thats all we do. ) It was likely a security concern when all the facts are known

Dos Equis · « **Reply #18 on:** August 19, 2011, 01:38:25 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on August 19, 2011, 01:12:12 PM

I know that around my city there are water treatment plants, and various other things that are on a list of places to be on a higher level of alert around. It stands to reason if someone is taking photos of something like that.. a place and or thing not normally of interest to visitors but could be of intererest to terrorist, we would be derelict in our duties NOT to look into it. Agree?

Agree.

garebear · « **Reply #19 on:** August 19, 2011, 01:39:01 PM »

I think we should all be arrested for talking about the picture.

Hope you boys are cool with the slammer.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 19, 2011, 01:40:16 PM »

Quote from: garebear on August 19, 2011, 01:39:01 PM

I think we should all be arrested for talking about the picture.

Hope you boys are cool with the slammer.

Roger Bacon · « **Reply #21 on:** August 19, 2011, 02:49:56 PM »

I want the government to intrude, and trample all my freedom so they can keep me safe!!!!

Fucking cowards.......

Roger Bacon · « **Reply #22 on:** August 19, 2011, 02:51:42 PM »

I honestly didn't think anyone on getbig would even try to defend this.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #23 on:** August 19, 2011, 02:56:27 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on August 19, 2011, 01:34:51 PM

I don't know how close you have to be with lenses these days but if they were on the property of an abandoned refinery, they would require the same permission.

I guess my point is this, cops or at least cops I work with don't care about someone taking pictures of benign things like the article tries to make it out. We really have other things we could be doing like eating, or visiting our buddies or beating jay walkers (said in jest because I know that is what a lot of people think thats all we do. ) It was likely a security concern when all the facts are known

if that's the case, then why not just charge him with criminal tresspass or some shit? It seems like that's the first reason for detaining or arresting someone. This place doesn't look maintained so I think it's the abandoned refinery. If he did take it from off of the property, lol.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 19, 2011, 04:31:59 PM »

Quote from: P.I.P on August 19, 2011, 02:51:42 PM

I honestly didn't think anyone on getbig would even try to defend this.

Probably due to your lack of information. I understand. But the deal is, there are times when someone photographing something rises to the level that an inquiry is prudent. If you cannot understand this in this day and age, that's okay too. We'll watch over you anyway