Check out Film Photography section of our forum.
Just because we can, should we?
Nov 22, 2019 22:11:39 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
The person was already being attended to by medical personnel. The photographer was a photojournalist trying to earn his living.
Understood, it's easy to judge while sitting in front of our computers, I wasn't there and neither were you, just saying I've seen it happen far too often.
Nov 23, 2019 00:00:07 #
The incident is a bit more complex than some here make it out to be... the photographer wasn't on public property, but on DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) property, and refused to follow an officer's orders to stop photographing and leave the property. After refusing to do either, he was arrested for trespassing.
Nov 23, 2019 02:25:46 #
Harry0
Loc: Gardena, Cal
This is LA
A ;ot of folks here agree with the "Good Samaritan" eviewpoint, and help out. But ...
The cops and courts will call it "vigilantism", and you can be arrested.
A ;ot of folks here agree with the "Good Samaritan" eviewpoint, and help out. But ...
The cops and courts will call it "vigilantism", and you can be arrested.
Nov 23, 2019 05:20:20 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Are you a professional photojournalist? This photographer was, and was doing his job.
Personally, I'd quit that job. Must be a better way to make a living.
Nov 23, 2019 06:08:44 #
cascoly wrote:
NO it doesnt - all it says is a judge/jury agreed with him - our adversarial justice system isn't concerned w right/wrong but with who argues best
Amen
Bill
Nov 23, 2019 06:09:55 #
cascoly wrote:
NO it doesnt - all it says is a judge/jury agreed with him - our adversarial justice system isn't concerned w right/wrong but with who argues best
The judge/jury did not necessarily agree with the over-zealous photographer, who put his pay packet first.
They interpreted and upheld the law, which was their only priority. My sympathies are with the cop who arrested the photographer, whether he was right or wrong - in my book he was morally right, regardless.
Nov 23, 2019 06:15:44 #
clemente21 wrote:
A photographer in Dallas was illegally arrested fo... (show quote)
If you sue and win that does not mean you are right. It only means what you did was legal in the eyes of the law. Do not confuse the law with justice or morality. If someone is in distress you should help the person first. If they are being helped by responders more capable than yourself then snap away. IMO
Check out AI Artistry and Creation section of our forum.
Nov 23, 2019 07:04:02 #
clemente21 wrote:
A photographer in Dallas was illegally arrested fo... (show quote)
Should your first reaction be to help someone in distress?? To me that is the most important action.
Nov 23, 2019 07:07:49 #
traderjohn wrote:
Should your first reaction be to help someone in distress?? To me that is the most important action.
If you had read the thread, you would know that the person was already being helped by medical personnel.
Nov 23, 2019 07:21:43 #
Bazbo
Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
clemente21 wrote:
A photographer in Dallas was illegally arrested fo... (show quote)
Every circumstance is different. My deciding process is as follows:
First, am I in a position to help? If so, don't shoot-help.
Secondly, if I am not in a position to help, will I interfere with first responders by shooting? If so, don't shoot.
That covers about 99 per cent of any instance I might encounter.
The last 1 per cent? I don't know. Rely on instinct I guess.
Nov 23, 2019 07:39:09 #
clemente21 wrote:
A photographer in Dallas was illegally arrested fo... (show quote)
Public space, take all the photos you want.
Who knows you might get something at an accident no one else noticed that could change an investigation.
Just do it.
That said I believe your first action should be to render all the aid that you can and are capable of first an foremost.
I saw a car go off the road and flip in the Sierra Nevadas. I stopped and got 3 children out and 1 adult. I carry a large sharp knife and used it to cut seat belts.
The car did catch fire and burned.
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
Nov 23, 2019 07:55:32 #
bbrown5154
Loc: Baltimore, MD
clemente21 wrote:
A photographer in Dallas was illegally arrested fo... (show quote)
Something about a moral obligation comes to mind but thats JMO.
Nov 23, 2019 08:12:03 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
clemente21 wrote:
A photographer in Dallas was illegally arrested fo... (show quote)
When I shot for UPI (united press international) we were told to keep our self safe first. When photographing the democratic convention in Chicago we witnessed many acts of violence by the Chicago Police Department against unarmed protesters, many were left bleeding in the streets, if we tried to intervene, we became targets and our camera's were destroyed. In one case my buddy received many blows from the officers night stick as he tried to bandage a bleeding protester.
Usually, we were informed about accidents on our scanners, we usually arrived just as, or after safety forces did. We did not take images of victims, the newspaper usually did not want to use them, usually they wanted shots of the accident scene, showing the car damage.
If we were witnessing a life and death situation, which I only witnessed once in over 3 years, then yes, we came to the persons aid and our Nikon's were on the ground.
An image is not worth someone's life.
Nov 23, 2019 08:15:11 #
At times I've been told, "Don't take photos!", but after the dust (and emotion!) have passed, I've been asked, "Did you get a photo of that? Could i get it from you?"
Nov 23, 2019 08:57:24 #
Wanderer2
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains
It is my understanding that the broad issue of the right of a photographer on public property has been all the way to the US Supreme Court in the past, and that the court held that a photographer in that situation may legally photograph anything that he/she can see while remaining on public property. There were a few exceptions, such as military installations.
It seems to me that there may be conflicting laws or rules in these situations. In the one in question, did the photographer have a legal obligation to follow a police officers instructions, cease photographing, and leave? I certainly don't know the answer to that. Apparently the jury felt the photographer didn't.
I do know that legal rights and the moral/ethical are not always the same and that seems to me to be at the center of this case.
It seems to me that there may be conflicting laws or rules in these situations. In the one in question, did the photographer have a legal obligation to follow a police officers instructions, cease photographing, and leave? I certainly don't know the answer to that. Apparently the jury felt the photographer didn't.
I do know that legal rights and the moral/ethical are not always the same and that seems to me to be at the center of this case.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.