Yalls Thoughts On My First Neg. Police Encounter

[480sparky]

........... And we all know that everything on the internet is true.

Never believe everything you see on the internet.
.................................................................Thomas Jefferson

 

[smoke665]

This is what happens when a photographer decides that they are also a lawyer because they read an article or watched a video on Youtube

The problem I see here is that what the OP was doing resulted in the police being called not once but twice. If you'll notice the first encounter was cordial, the 2nd less so, and I imagine a 3rd would have resulted in being given a ride in a police car. The job of the LEO is not to determine right or wrong but to maintain order. If you persist in being disruptive, right or wrong, they will charge you and let the judge sort it out.

 

[KmH]

The flea market is probably on private property, not on public property.
People in the flea market, both buyers and sellers, are out in public and can have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

However the property owner (not the cops, not a buyer or a seller) can prohibit photographs being made on their property.
Today, with the proliferation of phone cameras, enforcing a prohibition of making photos on private property can be a tough nut to crack.

The Press ID thing by the cop was a canard and just a BS excuse to get you to do what the cop wanted you to do, not what the law is.
Most cops have a limited familiarity of the laws of their own state let alone with federal laws.

I agree that in your own best interests you should have stopped and that your familiarity of your rights could use some improvement.

If your belief in your rights is strong enough it may be worth being arrested so you can use the courts to expose a LEO willing to exceed his bounds to deny you your rights.

There is a place in our society for peaceful civil disobedience.

 

[nerwin]

Good thing my family owns the local flea market in my town. I'm free to do what I want lol.

But I have no interest in taking photos at flea markets. Though I have taking pictures of interesting finds with my phone but that's a different thing.

If you are going there every week, I can see that getting on their nerves.

But generally I also agree with what others are saying.

However, I'd like to mention one thing. The presence of your person can be a huge factor. When I'm shooting in public, I generally look like I'm on a mission and no one ever bothers me. In Boston, I took pictures of people and some of them posed. Took photos of cops and they smiled.

I mean, it's a really werid thing your presence is. It can be a difference of a confrontation to an opportunity.

 

[Gary A.]

Firstly, knowing your location would be helpful as laws are quite different from country to country.

In the USA, possibly, the best statement made in this thread was by smoke665. Unfortunately or fortunately, the cops are there/here to keep the peace. Usually cops will take the path of least resistance to maintain said peace. It is easier to deal with a single stubborn photographer than a crowd of ignorant, angry, hostile people. In most any situation, common sense should prevail over law.

Again, in the USA, yes you have a right to photograph in public, but you don't have the right to start a riot or even a fight. Yes, you have a right to defend yourself but common sense says that discretion is the better part of valor ... choose your battle carefully.

I've seen flea markets on public and private ground. Usually, those in public the park/parking lot/et cetera will be leased to a private company so in either case it is not a clear 1st Amendment case (unless you kept to the public sidewalk). Even on publicly owned property you can be restricted from shooting, a school or a military base won't let you school willy-nilly without prior consent. Some places which are clearly private, as in the common areas of a shopping mall, can be considered a public place in the USA. So the law isn't always crystal clear and there are many exceptions.

Press does have more privileges than the average citizen. Example: The press can cross a police line, the press can legally withhold information when questioned by police and/or courts. But in your particular case the press has no greater rights/privileges than the average citizen.

Most security personnel are extremely ignorant of constitutional rights and quite frankly, most don't give a rat's, as smoke665 stated, it is all about keeping the peace. There is enough broadly written laws on the books to nail you on something else other than taking pictures in public. Unless you have equal or more resources available for attorneys than the agency arresting you and a lot of time on your hands to sit in court ... being pragmatic is a much easier and less painful path your righteous road. For a lot of us, pragmaticism works better than righteousness ... but God Bless those who stand up for their rights and the rights of others.

My own personal and objective observations and with my observations being reinforced by judges ... police lie in court. The judges tend to use words like "fudge" with the truth ... but the bottom line is that in a court of law, most juries will side with police than a common citizen and the police stack the deck by "fudging" their testimony.

Speaking with the cop's superior can certainly helpful, but I suggest to be constructive, give appreciation to the tough job cops have to do, speak to pragmatism, ask to speak to the offending officer either then or a latter date and if the superior states anything contrary, be quick and firm in correcting the record.

If the flea market is important to you and/or your photography, don't stalk the people from afar. Sling your camera around your neck and walk amongst the stalls, PURCHASE SOMETHING, talk to the people and try Not to take an unwelcomed photo. Hopefully, after many visits you and your uncontentious and friendly nature will be welcomed.

Personally and pragmatically, I figure why go someplace where you're not welcomed ... but you mentioned many there did welcome you. Then visit their stalls, chat with them, share some food that you purchased there with them, take them a print of their stall. Even say something positive to those who assaulted you, most are acting out of ignorance ... be thankful for being less ignorant and more tolerant than they.

There is no single correct answer here, other than avoid a conflict if possible. So take what everybody stated in ... take some time to let it all soak in then take a course which you and other can all live with.

Good Luck and Good Shooting.

 

[pendennis]

A public space is normally defined as a place the public has access to, whither it is privately owned or not and can still be places that charge an entrance fee. It's pretty well defined in most places that restrict smoking in public places (though in the UK if it's a place that is privatley owned then you just need permission from the owner to photograph there. Permission is normally assumed, until you are told you don't have permission. But even then all they can do is eject you from the premises if you don't comply - laws may vary in other countries)

Private property rights in the U.S. vary a bit with those in Scotland and Great Britain.

Private property means just that. When you enter by invitation, you must comply with the rules of the property owner. Paid admission to an event is a limited invitation.

On public property, that is, any property owned publicly, either by a government unit, or by dedication to public use, you can generally take photos of anything in view. This is not absolute "black letter law". When you're on a public sidewalk, for instance, you can take a photo of private property, even if the owner doesn't agree (I've had this exact experience). If you attempt to photograph law enforcement, you can have problems, because the police have broad powers to interpret "interference with a police operation". Generally, if you're taking pictures of a working fire, as long as you remain out of the way of the firefighters, you're O.K.

In a shopping mall, for example, the owners may ban any photography except upon their express permission. I found this out the easy way, when a couple wanted a wedding candid at a beautiful fountain in a mall atrium. I got permission to take the photo, expressly approved by the mall manager, and limited to that location only.

If, for instance, a flea market is taking place at a municipal parking lot, you generally have permission, unless the parking lot is leased for the event. In that case, the lessee can set the privacy rules, but they have to be specific, and in writing. They also have to comply with municipal law.

And, no, I will not delete any photograph I've taken, either digital or analog.

PS - I also protect myself from assault.

 

[nerwin]

Yeah shopping malls can be weird sometimes. I've got blamed for terrorism one time in a mall. Apparently everyone else was allowed to take photos except for me, heck I was just using my phone and I didn't even have my camera with me. I almost talked to a police officer that was there just to get some clarification, but I decided to leave or well was basically followed until I left. Kind of was scary for being blamed for terrorism.

Here in Vermont, the mall I go to doesn't even care if you do photo shoots inside lol. They actually have an employee who takes photos of people shopping and displays them on their Facebook page.

But the joke's on them! Malls are on their way out anyways.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think too it depends on where you live... Here there can be places/venues that are privately owned/managed/leased but the public attends events or uses the facility, etc. Doesn't mean it's necessarily public if 'the general public' is in attendance. I've seen stores with signs posted that cameras/photography is not allowed. I've seen a difference in sports in more recent years because, yeah, public safety is much more of a concern, and teams/arenas are protecting their name, logo, product (including the team/player images, etc.). Probably better to find out first what the policies are for an event or venue etc.

I've found photography can often involve interacting with people, whether you necessarily want it to be or not! lol Treating people with respect and consideration can go a long way.

 

[nerwin]

What I can't stand the most is some places don't even have any information whether or not photography is allowed. Then, when you ask an employee, they don't even know. So you go start shooting and then get yelled at. It's like, if they don't want people taking photos then CLEARLY put up signs stating that fact. Honestly, I believe they pick and choose and I don't believe that's right.

 

[table1349]

........... And we all know that everything on the internet is true.

Never believe everything you see on the internet.
.................................................................Thomas Jefferson

Yep that is not true. Never believe everything you see on the internet was spoken by George Washington not Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said never believe everything you see on You Tube. Jefferson was a big You Tube fan. Don't believe me, go to You Tube and type in his name. Hundreds of videos will pop up.

 

[table1349]

This is what happens when a photographer decides that they are also a lawyer because they read an article or watched a video on Youtube

The problem I see here is that what the OP was doing resulted in the police being called not once but twice. If you'll notice the first encounter was cordial, the 2nd less so, and I imagine a 3rd would have resulted in being given a ride in a police car. The job of the LEO is not to determine right or wrong but to maintain order. If you persist in being disruptive, right or wrong, they will charge you and let the judge sort it out.

Sorry, but the maintaining of order does require and LEO to determine right and wrong at any given time in a situation. It is the job of the courts to affirm or deny that a particular law or laws were broken and by whom.

 

[nerwin]

 

[table1349]

Press does have more privileges than the average citizen. Example: The press can cross a police line, the press can legally withhold information when questioned by police and/or courts. But in your particular case the press has no greater rights/privileges than the average citizen.

That is a true and not true. It is a jurisdictional thing. In Kansas the press cannot cross a police line. To do so can garner an arrest. Being a member of the press here garners you no further rights than the average citizen in regards to such things as crossing a police line.

My own personal and objective observations and with my observations being reinforced by judges ... police lie in court. The judges tend to use words like "fudge" with the truth ... but the bottom line is that in a court of law, most juries will side with police than a common citizen and the police stack the deck by "fudging" their testimony.

If Gary knows of ANY judge that has told him this they are either a liar or they at the minimum should be reported and removed from the judiciary and disbarred. At the most, they should be charged with the concealment of perjured testimony and judicial misconduct and the officers charged with perjury.

A judge by his oath is to remain neutral and unbiased. If a judge has not done so they have violated their oath at the very least. The public is generally distrustful of lawyers, but they look to judges as keepers of the truth.

 

[Gary A.]

[/QUOTE]
If Gary knows of ANY judge that has told him this they are either a liar or they at the minimum should be reported and removed from the judiciary and disbarred. At the most, they should be charged with the concealment of perjured testimony and judicial misconduct and the officers charged with perjury.

A judge by his oath is to remain neutral and unbiased. If a judge has not done so they have violated their oath at the very least. The public is generally distrustful of lawyers, but they look to judges as keepers of the truth.[/QUOTE]
An expert observation by a judge is not grounds for disbarment. If a judge cannot regularly separate fact from fudging ... elaboration from fantasy, objectively interpret the law without regards to personal opinions ... I think that person should not be a judge.

Interestingly, my main thrust was to beware of going to court because it is the home field of the police. They are not intimidated by courts, have been expertly instructed what to say and how to behave in order to win a conviction. Often, what they say and how they behave is more about winning than justice. But you pivoted my remarks pointing the finger at judges as being the culprit. There is a huge difference between a society we legislate and desire/wish to be ... and the de facto realty. If we ALL we righteous, we wouldn't need most courts ... especially criminal courts. I do not see how a judge's personal and expert observations of police testimony in their courtrooms, would, by and of itself, prejudices their conduct and be a reason for disbarment.

 

[smoke665]

Sorry, but the maintaining of order does require and LEO to determine right and wrong at any given time in a situation

Think you're splitting hairs and missed the big picture of my point. The police had already been called to a disturbance which the OP created by taking pictures. Per the OP's words they "respectfully" asked him to stop. Then the situation escalated to a larger confrontation a second time requiring them to respond. By that time, like Gary A said they probably didn't care if he had the right to take pictures or not.