Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

photo guy Loc: Chippewa Falls, WI

Thanks for sharing. Too many officers out there who over step their boundries. I know a lot of officers and even have one in the family so I try to keep an even stance but I do know some of the local ones in my county who are badge happy so it doesn't surprise me.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

now who would, could have thunk'it.

an the list goes on.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG6bSCcg_cw&feature=player_embedded#!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It's good that events like this are so rare that they make the news. As for myself, I don't plan to take any pics when there are police around. Being right after the fact isn't always good enough.

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

Nice article, I understand the embarassment caused in this case but to asume that you can control everything in this situation is nieve.

Blake

wingincamera Loc: Spanaway, Washington

I don't know the law where this story took place, but in some states (like Washington) it is illegal to record a person's voice without their permission, with some exceptions (911 call centers, court order, news crews and others). Video or photos are not a problem, only if the voice is being recorded.

dragonfist Loc: Stafford, N.Y.

While I don't fault your reasoning isn't it kind of scary to know we actually live in a place where fear of police retribution precludes us from doing what is actually legal? I often wonder how akin to Gestapo some police officers are in the way they treat the public?

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

Depending on the states, in some state only one party needs to know that they are being recorded. However, that is not compareable to a picture. Perticularly, when ther are no specific individuals that can be identified like the photo in England. If there was one or more identifiable subjects in the image then and it was on private property then you would be correct. Do you remember The photo of the firefighter that was carrying the infant in his arms when the Muro Building was bombed? That Firefighter was just doing his job. Are you suggesting that or anyother image can not be taken and used. Please do not read this as an asult on your take on the subject but I am trying to elisit a discussion. Thank you for your Service to the country and to our community.

Blake

Iowegan

I am under the impression, this story and event occured in London, UK.

It has zero bearing on ops in the USA.
While it would be nice to know that such things do occur, we will have to hope that photographers aren't considered a scourge.
That said, how many times have we read about situations where a citizen was harassed and indeed, arrested by police, for recording actions on cell phones.
In too many cases, we read about an officer illegally seizing person property, and destroying it.. The act itself, is criminal, and what they were obviously attempting to destroy was evidence of another illegal action.
I'm not saying all police are as such, but, it seems, that more and more are becoming such.
I don't know why, perhaps it's the US v THEM mentality at work.

There was an escalating incident in St. Louis a few years ago, that concern an "officer" who was apparently harassing some kid.
The kid tried to explain to a Judge that he was being harassed, but it was the kid's word against an officer of the Court, and the kid was essentially called a liar.
Kid decides his only protection was to wire his car with both sound and video.
Not a wasted effort, because days afterward, he is pulled over again, same cop, similar scenario.
Only this time, it's recorded.
After this event concluded, he met with attorney, and they approached PD with evidence of clear and obvious illegalities of officer against citizen.
Yes, it went viral, dept does supposed investigation. Shortly after this, kid's life is threatened by detectives in St. Louis, to drop case, else something might happen to him....

To the chase here; do not for one second believe that just because you have a piece of paper in your hand with some statement of perceived rights, that this will protect you from an overzealous individual with a badge. Again not all are like this. Unfortunately, too many ARE:

The link below is but one of those cases, in St. Louis alone.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49b_1190900017

Same citizen, yet another cop harassing him.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/video-vigilante-records-a-third-time-getting-harassed-by-cops

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

Hi Douglass,
This is a great bill. I am a firefighter and we are photographed often while we work. We may not always like but since the camera has been around, we have been caputered. As long as we can keep you safe or you stay out of harms way. I/we do not mind your capturing the heat of the moment. :thumbup: Sometime your images can help us in some instances. Thank you.

Blake

nikonesian Loc: Midwest USA

In the wee hours they deal with some real kooks.In the PA incident I would have shown him my ID and explained what I was doing in more detail. Doesn't excuse the officer's subsequent actions though.

oldmalky Loc: West Midlands,England.

As was pointed out this happened in the UK and would have no bearing on anything in the USA.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

As per the other cites in this thread, scrutiny on photographers in public places, continues to occur within the U.S.

I personally have been told by a contracted construction worker that I was not allowed to photograph his company's curbing & paving equipment on my street as it passed in front of my residence, per "company policy". I was standing on the public sidewalk at the time.

The only remedy for ignorance is education.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

As long as they are successful in trampling Constitutional rights, the small percentage of people that resist make little difference. I'm not a fan of the ACLU, but in cases like this, I wish they were a little more aggressive like they are when a terrorist in the one they are defending.