Too bad no one filmed what led to it.
Longshadow wrote:
Too bad no one filmed what led to it.
Yeah, there are no details. Maybe they were throwing rocks at the cops. : )
I'd hate to be in a situation like that - face down on the ground, getting zip-ties put on my wrists.
It was obvious that the photographer doing the video was non-compliant with the officer's request it's the first photographer that was arrested at the same way he deserved what he got. Just because you're carrying a camera doesn't give you a right to not comply with the law
As a retired state trooper, I can tell you that I've been at many accident or crime scenes where people get in the way to photograph or gawk at the scene--photographers, reporters and just ordinary people who are curious. Most respected the requests to stay away and keep out of the scene, as getting in there can harm or destroy evidence. Those who were noncompliant were threatened with arrest for interfering, but fortunately, I never had to actually arrest someone for that. This guy apparently didn't get the message, so he got another one.
Just because you can legally photograph something doesn't mean you should. Unless you are an accident/crime scene investigator there is no good reason why photographing a dead person, especially a child, is a good idea. Can cops arrest you for "bad taste"? Dunno, but they can arrest you for not obeying a lawful order. And being told to leave the scene of an accident or a crime is a legal order. People, on all sides of an issue, need to show a bit of respect and restraint. And if it was my loved one laying in the street and somebody was trying to get closeup photos, instead of describing my shot as "in focus, nice bokeh", it would be "nice grouping".
"Freelance journalist" with a cell phone and no credentials? Yeah, right. The officer showed a great deal of patience and restraint. The non-compliant fool shooting the video should have been the next one in zip ties.
"According to Jeffrey Dvorkin, the director of the University of Toronto’s journalism program: “The fact that the police thought they could restrict them in this way is an affront to journalism and to the law,” “Clearly the journalists were not doing anything untoward.”
Clearly the journalists WERE doing something untoward. They were refusing to obey a lawful order to leave the scene. It seems that some journalists think that freedom of the press means they can go anywhere they want, and if they are barred, it's amounts to some sort of harassment or unfair treatment on the part of law enforcement. The reality of it all is, the public does not have an absolute right to know what's going on, and the media/press does not have an absolute right to report it, especially if they get in the way. So while there is no absolute right, it is nice to know what's going on, but that's as far as it goes.
Wingpilot wrote:
"According to Jeffrey Dvorkin, the director of the University of Toronto’s journalism program: “The fact that the police thought they could restrict them in this way is an affront to journalism and to the law,” “Clearly the journalists were not doing anything untoward.”
Clearly the journalists WERE doing something untoward. They were refusing to obey a lawful order to leave the scene. It seems that some journalists think that freedom of the press means they can go anywhere they want, and if they are barred, it's amounts to some sort of harassment or unfair treatment on the part of law enforcement. The reality of it all is, the public does not have an absolute right to know what's going on, and the media/press does not have an absolute right to report it, especially if they get in the way. So while there is no absolute right, it is nice to know what's going on, but that's as far as it goes.
"According to Jeffrey Dvorkin, the director o... (
show quote)
Well said on both your posts bro. Been there--done that way too many times.
There wasn't enough information there to determine whether to cops were out of line or not. They certainly have the right to prevent people from getting close enough to interfere with their work or compromise evidence. But they shouldn't order people not to photograph the scene from far enough away that it doesn't interfere with law enforcement work.
JohnSwanda wrote:
There wasn't enough information there to determine whether to cops were out of line or not. They certainly have the right to prevent people from getting close enough to interfere with their work or compromise evidence. But they shouldn't order people not to photograph the scene from far enough away that it doesn't interfere with law enforcement work.
Actually, the police do have not only the right, but an obligation to make sure the scene of an accident or crime isn't interfered with, even if that means keeping reporters away at a distance that makes photographing the scene difficult. People who aren't familiar with police investigation procedures don't understand the importance of keeping the scene "sterile," as we like to say. It can make the difference between solving a case and not solving a case, and if a case can't be solved due to people trampling over the scene and ruining evidence, that is unfair to the the victims and their families and friends. It can mean determining how and why something happened or not. So yes, the police should keep others out of a scene if they are interfering. And those ordered away, have a duty to obey the lawful order of a police officer. It certainly counts for nothing to defy the officer, and only complicates a situation, making it worse and irritating others. Reasonableness is the key word here, and the police do have an obligation to be reasonable as much as possible.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.