# Police Deleted My Photo's!! C&C Also



## rfosness88 (Feb 22, 2009)

So I am a 20yr old college student at UW Whitewater. 14,000 people in the town 10,000 people at my university and there are waaayyyy too many police, and all they do is bust underage drinkers(literally will walk up to you and breathalyze you).

Tonight I decided to capture some "night life". Not being 21 or having a fake I had to remain outside the bars(weatcher channel says its 17 degrees and feels like 3 degrees). My fist shots were of police talking to some witnesses/suspects of a fight that happened outside of a bar. The witnesses/suspects saw me take some snapshots and yelled some ebonics. One of the police officers walked over and told, "you can keep taking pictures but these guys don't seem to like that your taking pictures of them". So I walk down the sidewalk a bit and take some shots of the squad cars and proceed down the block.

I then come across a girl in the back of a squad car parked on the side of the road with the female officer doing something or other on her laptop. I walk by, stop and take two shots of the squad car, showing the person in back. The girl drunkenly shouts "now someooone's taking picurrrrsss" I keep walking, nothing happens. About 15 min. later the same squad car(now without a victim in the back seat) pulls up to me on the sidewalk. The officer asks me what I am doing. I respond, "taking pictures of night life in Whitewater". She then tells me that I have to delete the pictures of the girl she arrested. I said ok. Then she asked to see that I deleted it. At this point she didnt give me time to delete them so i was like, "Ya I will delete them in front of you" and i reached my head and camera into the car(neck strap around my head) and deleted the first one. Then she said "give me your camera" I replied, "are you confiscating it?" she said no I said i'll show they are deleted, then she was obviously getting irritated, she said "I'll give it right back". Not wanting further trouble and not knowing my photographer rights I gave in. She scrolled through my photo's and deleted a handful of photo's including some from the first "crime scene". 

Then I started asking questions. She said I can take pictures of people being arrested unless they say they(victim being arrested) do not want a picture taken, in witch case the officer may or may not come delete my photo. Then I was like, "So the police delete CNN's footage and photo's all the time then?''. She said yes, but I doubt it. I was watching CNN and the were showing Madoff walking somewhere and photographers were pushing him backwards in order to get a better picture of him. I can just see him now, "give me your camera, delete those pictures!!".

I know these photo's are pretty bad, im still learning all the settings, and I had no tripod and my lens is bad in low light.

So does anyone know our photography rights?

(1)
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





(2)
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(3)


----------



## Solthar (Feb 22, 2009)

First off the police have absolutely no right deleting photos.  Ever.  As per the Photographer's rights PDF, "Law enforcement officers may have the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order."

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

That said, It's always best to analyze the situation before taking action. And for heavens sake, if you do decide to argue about it with an officer, be civil and polite! Also the cop can 'ask' you to delete the photos - after all, they're just asking a question - but you are under zero obligation to comply in this case!

Also, an interesting note - if they arrest you and confiscate your camera and then delete photos, they are in deep deep legal excrement.  Destroying evidence is never looked kindly upon by judges .


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 22, 2009)

Great info thanks. I asked and she told me I legally had to delete the photo's. The police are very corrupt in this town though. I will expose them all!!


----------



## t4ct1c4lr3m1x (Feb 22, 2009)

It's a shame that the cops even have to ruin photography.  What a world we live in, haha.


----------



## chrisburke (Feb 22, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> I asked and she told me I legally had to delete the photo's.



thats a typical cop tactic... they assume that people don't know their rights, so they just tell you want you need to hear in order to make you comply... 

as for the photos... they are pretty dark.. but they are also out of focus, my guess is you did these hand held, which means you would need a faster shutter speed, and i dont think i see a flash... which means the camera is going to slow down your shutter speed... if that makes any sense


----------



## AlexColeman (Feb 22, 2009)

Thats why I always lock them, and never ever give the camera to them. You have no obligation to give it to them or delete photos, especially in a public place. You can photograph anyone, at any tme on public property, no matter how they may feel.


----------



## Dao (Feb 22, 2009)

The funny thing is, you can delete the photos. Then take the memory out so that you will not overwrite it with new pictures.  Then go home and use software to undelete them.


----------



## TUX424 (Feb 22, 2009)

Dao said:


> The funny thing is, you can delete the photos. Then take the memory out so that you will not overwrite it with new pictures.  Then go home and use software to undelete them.


Dont format the card ether 
haha


----------



## ThePhotoRebellion (Feb 22, 2009)

Did you get the police officers names or badge numbers?

I'd file a complaint, then get in touch with the local media.

Photographers are suing "law enforcement" agencies left and right for violating our rights.

Hit them where it hurts, their wallets.

@rfossness88 - I have a couple posts on my blog that you may find interesting.

The Photo Rebellion


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 22, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> Great info thanks. I asked and she told me I legally had to delete the photo's. The police are very corrupt in this town though. I will expose them all!!



SERPICO!  

In these situations your option is clear: "Please get your Duty Chief down here to explain to me I need to hand this over to you."

While I feel for your situation, the cop didn't really do anything wrong.  They can tell you whatever the hell they want, its when challenged that the real issue of legality begins, because then there is a "paper trail" so to speak.  The fact that earlier you had an officer contradict what the current officer was telling you should have been an immediate red flag.


----------



## ~Stella~ (Feb 22, 2009)

Ebonics?  Was race really pertinent to the story?


----------



## bjorkfiend (Feb 22, 2009)

~Stella~ said:


> Ebonics?  Was race really pertinent to the story?



Really?  This is what you chose to comment on?  It was a descriptor and nothing more.  Leave the guy alone and try not to derail the thread.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 22, 2009)

~Stella~ said:


> Ebonics?  Was race really pertinent to the story?



Yes because black people are the only people that talk ebonics or slang :er:


----------



## OregonAmy (Feb 22, 2009)

~Stella~ said:


> Ebonics?  Was race really pertinent to the story?



That was my initial reaction to the story (well, noting "ebonics"... not race) & tainted my whole perspective of it against the OP. (well, that, and the comment that "all" the police do there is bust underage drinkers. Yeah, no bias there.) It's hard to sympathize with the OP (or trust the objectivity of the story) when s/he clearly has opinions about the subjects (both the cops and the drinkers). 

Regardless, it was interesting to read the subsequent posts about photographers' rights.


----------



## OregonAmy (Feb 22, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> Yes because black people are the only people that talk ebonics or slang :er:



Well if you want to be that picky, she said nothing about black people.


----------



## Seefutlung (Feb 22, 2009)

Next time say "No. With all due respect officer I believe that you do not have the law behind you in this case. I request you call your Watch Commander on this matter or someone in law enforcement who has more expertise on 1st Amendment Rights and privacy matters." 

(Then write down the badge number and request their name ... remember the act of writing will take the confrontation to a higher level.)

If the officer still demands that you delete the images ... then I'd say. "I will not delete any images from this card. Upon your demand I will surrender the card to you for safe-keeping until a proper disposition can be made upon this matter in an arena where my full rights will be acknowledged. I will only surrender the card if you provide me with a receipt identifing images by file name and quantity and signed by yourself."

The Police can nail you if, in their opinion that you, as a non-press/media credentialed person, are creating a "situation" or "heightening a situation" making it tougher for them to do their job. And they can nail you if you do not instantly respond to their directions and orders when they are in a confrontational situation.

If you were credentialed it would be a different story, the "people's" right to know is more important than the police's need for calm. 

Gary

PS- You might want to print the essense of this out and just hand it to the officer next time a demand to delete is made. Remember that by not instantly complying with all demands of the officer you will be making an enemy and cops will get even.

Short term solution is to let it go ... long term is to stand up for your rights ... but the consequences will be the potential for regular harrassment by the police.

If you're a Communications/Journalist major ... then I'd make an appointment with the Police Chief and explain the situation to him and request that he inform his/her officers that you will be on the streets and of your rights. (If you are doing this just for "fun", then the police will see you as a thorn and not work with you at all.)

In return you can tell the Chief that you will provide them with a courtesy review (but not "prior restraint") of the images before any get published on the internet or print.

But, before you do any of this, make sure that you know your rights and limitations thereof. 
G

PPS- The best info I can give you is to go here:

www.photoattorney.com

Read all the stuff and print out "The Photographers Right's".
G

PPPS- Even if arrested for trespassing the police haven't a right to delete the images taken while trespassing.
G


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 22, 2009)

OregonAmy said:


> That was my initial reaction to the story (well, noting "ebonics"... not race) & tainted my whole perspective of it against the OP. (well, that, and the comment that "all" the police do there is bust underage drinkers. Yeah, no bias there.) It's hard to sympathize with the OP (or trust the objectivity of the story) when s/he clearly has opinions about the subjects (both the cops and the drinkers).
> 
> Regardless, it was interesting to read the subsequent posts about photographers' rights.



As far as the OP goes in most places it is perfectly legal to breathalyze a person in public if they are displaying signs of inebriation as most states have a law or laws regarding being (as Ron White would say) Drunk in Public.  Of course that person again in most states has the right to refuse and ask for a BAC test if they wish.   Of course if the person is underage and provides a fake id thats a whole other story.  

I really dont think that the OP was jaded regarding the race issue at all.  He stated a fact.  He didnt say anything out of line at all.


----------



## ~Stella~ (Feb 22, 2009)

He or she put it out there - it's fair game.

Where is your insightful on-topic comment?

ANDS! is on it.  He/she agreed to delete when even the first cop said it wasn't required, so he should have asked for clarification from a superior.  This is not lawsuit-worthy material.  It is unfortunate that many law enforcement officers are poorly informed - I have no doubt that most are not malicious as you all seem to think, just undereducated in this area.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 22, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> Yes because black people are the only people that talk ebonics or slang :er:



Some people just need to visit West Virginia.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 22, 2009)

~Stella~ said:


> He or she put it out there - it's fair game.
> 
> Where is your insightful on-topic comment?
> 
> ANDS! is on it.  He/she agreed to delete when even the first cop said it wasn't required, so he should have asked for clarification from a superior.  This is not lawsuit-worthy material.  It is unfortunate that many law enforcement officers are poorly informed - I have no doubt that most are not malicious as you all seem to think, just undereducated in this area.



Police officers are not as ill informed as you may believe they are.  Most of them are counting on a photographer not knowing their rights.  There are places and events that are not fair game for photographers thanks to the Office of Homeland Security.   I have a copy of the page that Seefutlung mentioned in my camera bag with me at all times.  Not that I have ever really had to use it.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2009)

Wow... frustrates me to read this.  I wish they would hand out photographers rights explanations with every camera sold.  I totally understand why the cop did it, but she was taking advantage of your not knowing your rights.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2009)

Here, read these:

Photographer's Legal Rights 
Model Release Form 
Court Case on Legality of Sale of Street Photography 
Fair Use, Copyrights, Needing Permission


----------



## ~Stella~ (Feb 22, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> Police officers are not as ill informed as you may believe they are. Most of them are counting on a photographer not knowing their rights. There are places and events that are not fair game for photographers thanks to the Office of Homeland Security. I have a copy of the page that Seefutlung mentioned in my camera bag with me at all times. Not that I have ever really had to use it.


 
I think some are well informed, some are ill informed, and some have such personal control issues that their level of education on this point is completely moot.


----------



## SlimPaul (Feb 22, 2009)

I agree with others. Police officers have no right to touch your camera. You can try restoring the deleted photos with some software. As to the photos you've posted, they're a bit blurred. What ISO did you use?


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 22, 2009)

Sorry everyone for my use of the word "ebonics" what they said was inaudible, but it was some form of slang. Also note that my roommate and I are white and frequently talk in ebonics.

Blurry, yes. I had no tripod, I heard that ISO over 400 makes the images too noisy, so I was mostly at ISO 400, I few were 650. Reviewing the pictures I think a little more noisiness would be better than dark images.

No flash-Frankly I am very new to photography and was kind of nervous about drawing so much attention to me, especially after the police indecent. 

While taking the 3rd picture one of the guys walking by said, "look at the creep with the camera" granted I didn't know them, that's the only picture I took of them. Is that creepy to take random pictures of poeple like that?

Thanks for all the info and the great links guys. I really appreciate it!


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 22, 2009)

almost forgot. She asked for my ID, not sure if I am required to give it to them in Wisconsin, but I complied. She wrote down all my information. Prolly just to check my warrants, or put me on the naughty list.


----------



## Peanuts (Feb 22, 2009)

Okay, I am going to take a bit of a different side to this.  I think it has officially been determined that she was in the wrong to delete your images however the bigger issue I am seeing is your choice of taking these images.

Legally are you allowed to? You bet, it is a 'public place'.  Should you?  I wouldn't.  I put myself into the position of the officers, or even the people who they are questioning, and I personally would be pretty peeved if someone took photos.  If I was in the back of a squad car, whether I was inebriated or not, I would probably be quite upset for some random to come by and just shoot an image.  As a police officer I would feel it was my responsibility to keep a person I have detained or am questioning from someone just snapping pictures.

Just a thought to keep in mind.

PS: Don't eat me


----------



## table1349 (Feb 22, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> almost forgot.* She asked for my ID, not sure if I am required to give it to them in Wisconsin, but I complied.* She wrote down all my information. Prolly just to check my warrants, or put me on the naughty list.



You are not legally obliged to identify yourself to the police. However, truthfully, on the street, if you fail to identify yourself to a police officer who asks, you are probably going to be detained. The police officer will probably say in the report that it wasn't because you refused to identify yourself but because the actions of you not identifying yourself caused them to be suspicious for some other reason.

If they have cause to arrest you then yes you have to identify yourself.  Well actually you don't, but then they are not obligated to let you post a bond until to get out of jail until they know your true and proper identity.


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 22, 2009)

Peanuts said:


> Okay, I am going to take a bit of a different side to this.  I think it has officially been determined that she was in the wrong to delete your images however the bigger issue I am seeing is your choice of taking these images.
> 
> Legally are you allowed to? You bet, it is a 'public place'.  Should you?  I wouldn't.  I put myself into the position of the officers, or even the people who they are questioning, and I personally would be pretty peeved if someone took photos.  If I was in the back of a squad car, whether I was inebriated or not, I would probably be quite upset for some random to come by and just shoot an image.  As a police officer I would feel it was my responsibility to keep a person I have detained or am questioning from someone just snapping pictures.
> 
> Just a thought to keep in mind.



I see what your saying, however most of the college students that I have talked to would pay for a picture of them being arrested. I would love a poster on my wall of me being arrested. In Madison WI during Halloween and the Mifflin block parties the police will fake handcuff you and pose with them for a picture  I realize not all students would like this. In this small town I live in there is not much excitement, equipped with my Canon and my Uniden Police Scanner I have found some entertainment besides underage drinking.


----------



## Arch (Feb 22, 2009)

Peanuts said:


> Okay, I am going to take a bit of a different side to this.  I think it has officially been determined that she was in the wrong to delete your images however the bigger issue I am seeing is your choice of taking these images.
> 
> Legally are you allowed to? You bet, it is a 'public place'.  Should you?  I wouldn't.  I put myself into the position of the officers, or even the people who they are questioning, and I personally would be pretty peeved if someone took photos.  If I was in the back of a squad car, whether I was inebriated or not, I would probably be quite upset for some random to come by and just shoot an image.  As a police officer I would feel it was my responsibility to keep a person I have detained or am questioning from someone just snapping pictures.
> 
> ...



At last some reason added to this very one sided debate.

Guys we all know our rights (well i do, and lots of you too) but imo that does not mean you should start demanding things from police officers 'just because you can'.

As Peanuts says... taking photos of some one who has been detained and who is acting out because she is getting photographed could well be making the officers job harder... for all we know she could have been banging on about having her photo taken all the way to the station (if thats where she was going)....
I do not believe that we should all cry out rights when we are not in the situation... its easy to say this from the outside.
Its like taking pics in an abandoned building, if you can get in and out without any bother then great... but if you run out of luck, or are in a difficult situation then fair play, better luck next time.


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 22, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> You are not legally obliged to identify yourself to the police. However, truthfully, on the street, if you fail to identify yourself to a police officer who asks, you are probably going to be detained. The police officer will probably say in the report that it wasn't because you refused to identify yourself but because the actions of you not identifying yourself caused them to be suspicious for some other reason.



Good to know thanks. I just don't want to end up on there "naughty" list and get harassed.

At one point there was a kid that could barley walk and he was dropping/fiddling with his keys trying to get into his downtown apartment and a squad car was parked across the street waiting for a reason to confront him. I walked over and unlocked the door for him and waved to the cop. He waved and drove away. Prolly saved that kid a public intoxication ticket.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 22, 2009)

Here's the stark reality.  On the street the police are always right.  If confronted by the police, they will get their way regardless of how well versed you are regarding our rights.  The more you argue, the more their resolve will strengthen.  The best you can hope for is to do as they ask and if you truly feel violated, seek damages after the fact.  Politely disagree with their acts, request a business card or at the very least write down their names and badge numbers.  Always do as they ask.

If they delete your images, recover them later.  But don't give them a reason to arrest you or to confiscate your gear.  They are trained to not back down.  The more you argue with them the worse you make it for yourself.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 22, 2009)

Peanuts said:


> Okay, I am going to take a bit of a different side to this.  I think it has officially been determined that she was in the wrong to delete your images however the bigger issue I am seeing is your choice of taking these images.
> 
> Legally are you allowed to? You bet, it is a 'public place'.  Should you?  I wouldn't.  I put myself into the position of the officers, or even the people who they are questioning, and I personally would be pretty peeved if someone took photos.  If I was in the back of a squad car, whether I was inebriated or not, I would probably be quite upset for some random to come by and just shoot an image.  As a police officer I would feel it was my responsibility to keep a person I have detained or am questioning from someone just snapping pictures.
> 
> ...



I am not going to eat you but.....  If you dont want a picture of you taken in the back of a police car than dont get arrested to begin with.  To be completely honest I would be to worried about being in the cop car to notice someone taking my picture.  The only time that a police officer will generally worry about someone taking a picture of someone is if it is a crime victim.  For the most part they could care less about the perpatrator.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2009)

Arch said:


> At last some reason added to this very one sided debate.
> 
> Guys we all know our rights (well i do, and lots of you too) but imo that does not mean you should start demanding things from police officers 'just because you can'.
> 
> ...


 
This is fine, but I do think that sometimes someone really needs to make a stand on things like this, even if they're going to get raked over the coals for it.

The problem is that without thes righteous fights, rights slowly get eroded away.  The important thing is to try not to be an absolute jerk about it, and stand for your rights in a respectful manner.

In this case with the officer, I might simply say "With all due respect, officer, technically I'm within my legal rights to take the pictures.  Can I ask why you feel the need to ask me to delete them?" or something along those lines.

Who knows... she might even have a reason that you actually understand and agree with.

No matter what, giving the officer a "Well,  no, I'm not going to delete these" is probably going to make your life pretty difficult, righteous or no.  Sometimes you should take that stand, sometimes not.  It's tough.

Obviously where you didn't know, the officer took advantage and you should pretty much go "yeah, ok" and move on.  Next time?  I would push back a bit, but just not be stupid or reckless about it.


----------



## sultan (Feb 22, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> I am not going to eat you but.....  If you dont want a picture of you taken in the back of a police car than dont get arrested to begin with.  To be completely honest I would be to worried about being in the cop car to notice someone taking my picture.  The only time that a police officer will generally worry about someone taking a picture of someone is if it is a crime victim.  For the most part they could care less about the perpatrator.



I second that. Don't want a picture of you taken in a cop car? Then don't cause trouble and get arrested. Consider the photograph to be a little punishment to the criminal.


----------



## Peanuts (Feb 22, 2009)

I find what Mgw189 and sultan said a bit presumptuous.  First, they may not be guilty. Second, who knows the circumstances behind it (in the case she was obviously inebriated), but what are you going to do when it is someone who is being told that their friend was just shot/killed in an automobile accident etc. etc.  Although things might seem really black and white at the time as to what the circumstances are, symptoms of being inebriated can be quite similar to shock/grief (nonsensical screaming, slurring, tears, etc. etc.)
Once again, just stating things that everyone should think about when photographing people.


----------



## Jaszek (Feb 22, 2009)

Just like tharmsen said, recover them. It's going to take you about 5 minutes or less if you didn't format your card.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 22, 2009)

bjorkfiend said:


> Really?  This is what you chose to comment on?  It was a descriptor and nothing more.  Leave the guy alone and try not to derail the thread.



Thank you!!


----------



## stsinner (Feb 22, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> I am not going to eat you but.....  If you dont want a picture of you taken in the back of a police car than dont get arrested to begin with.



Agree 100%.  Once you decide that laws don't matter, I decide that your rights don't matter..


----------



## KD5NRH (Feb 22, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> She then tells me that I have to delete the pictures of the girl she arrested.



If no crime was committed by taking the photos, then they are not her concern.  If a crime was committed, they are evidence, and deleting them would be tampering with that evidence.


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 22, 2009)

Jaszek said:


> Just like tharmsen said, recover them. It's going to take you about 5 minutes or less if you didn't format your card.



already formatted the card, but w/e it was just a few photo's, I was just wondering if what they did was "normal" or legal.

Is there a free app you guys use to recover your photo's (mac)


----------



## Peanuts (Feb 22, 2009)

KD5NRH said:


> If no crime was committed by taking the photos, then they are not her concern.  If a crime was committed, they are evidence, and deleting them would be tampering with that evidence.



Evidence of someone sitting in a police cruiser?


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 22, 2009)

Peanuts said:


> Evidence of someone sitting in a police cruiser?



I think he is talking "in general"


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 22, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> Is there a free app you guys use to recover your photo's (mac)



SanDisk cards (I think only the Extreme (or better) ones) come with recovery software.


----------



## Battou (Feb 22, 2009)

Peanuts said:


> Okay, I am going to take a bit of a different side to this.  I think it has officially been determined that she was in the wrong to delete your images however the bigger issue I am seeing is your choice of taking these images.
> 
> Legally are you allowed to? You bet, it is a 'public place'.  Should you?  I wouldn't.  I put myself into the position of the officers, or even the people who they are questioning, and I personally would be pretty peeved if someone took photos.  If I was in the back of a squad car, whether I was inebriated or not, I would probably be quite upset for some random to come by and just shoot an image.  As a police officer I would feel it was my responsibility to keep a person I have detained or am questioning from someone just snapping pictures.
> 
> ...



It was for this very reason I did not reply to this thread earlier. I simply did not see a photo or any evidence of there having been one. There is nothing of consiquence here, Despite not being with the press I've put my self into some awkward situations with police officers with my camera but never once have they "bothered me". In this situation I was literally surounded by uniform and plain clothed police officers, they literally sat there and watched me take every shot of the police cruser, This was a road block, and that is not to mention all the Medivac Flights I have shot where I am litterally bobbing and weaving my way threw uniforms to get into position. But, for all of those situations there was always a clear cut reason for the pressence of a camera that I am not seeing here. Police officers handing out citations isn't really a photoworthy event and I feel this may be what spawned their reaction, no clear cut reason to be there. It's times like this where you have to ask your self, "What exactly where you shooting?" If you can't come up with an answer that is more than "nothing special", then just leave the camera at your side, Just because you can does not mean you should.


----------



## Kegger (Feb 22, 2009)

Having dealt with WI LEOs, I say they went a bit too far. I've had police ask to view what I have shot, I showed them. But if they ever tried to take my camera or asked me to have it I always said no. Everytime. Especially if they told me to delete something. I've been detained twice until their supervisor arrived as requested. And explained the situation and my rights as a photographer and was released without incident. 

But I am always courteous with LEOs, and never get an attitude. Never a good thing when you also happen to carry a gun at all times, lol.


----------



## KD5NRH (Feb 23, 2009)

Peanuts said:


> Evidence of someone sitting in a police cruiser?



One would have to wonder why any officer would be concerned about such photos.  Especially since they could show injuries or a lack thereof which might not match up with the officer's report later.

This is also one of the reasons that I tend to carry a voice recorder and know the laws regarding its use and admissibility in court in my state.


----------



## KD5NRH (Feb 23, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Politely disagree with their acts, request a business card or at the very least write down their names and badge numbers.



And learn to be subtle.  The best "street life" photos involve the subjects not knowing you're even there.  Telephoto and high-ISO ain't just for shooting raccoons.


----------



## KD5NRH (Feb 23, 2009)

Kegger said:


> But if they ever tried to take my camera or asked me to have it I always said no. Everytime.



I keep two different criminal defense attorneys' cell numbers on speed dial.  I also know at least the night shift weekday and weekend supervisors at the local PD, and they know that by the time I've requested them at a scene, I will also have one of those attorneys at least on speakerphone, if not on the way already.  It makes them much more willing to actually go look up the law in question.



> Never a good thing when you also happen to carry a gun at all times, lol.



Another reason for the lawyers and the voice recorder; at least they'll know exactly what was said before they got there, and they'll be there a lot quicker than if I have to go find a phone book first.


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 23, 2009)

Battou said:


> It was for this very reason I did not reply to this thread earlier. I simply did not see a photo or any evidence of there having been one. There is nothing of consiquence here, Despite not being with the press I've put my self into some awkward situations with police officers with my camera but never once have they "bothered me". In this situation I was literally surounded by uniform and plain clothed police officers, they literally sat there and watched me take every shot of the police cruser, This was a road block, and that is not to mention all the Medivac Flights I have shot where I am litterally bobbing and weaving my way threw uniforms to get into position. But, for all of those situations there was always a clear cut reason for the pressence of a camera that I am not seeing here. Police officers handing out citations isn't really a photoworthy event and I feel this may be what spawned their reaction, no clear cut reason to be there. It's times like this where you have to ask your self, "What exactly where you shooting?" If you can't come up with an answer that is more than "nothing special", then just leave the camera at your side, Just because you can does not mean you should.



I was shooting night life in my town and showing the overwhelming population of Police. Last year I had 4 officers in my dorm room at 4:00am(roommate and I were sleeping) they had to "change my court date" and try and pressure me into letting them search my room. My court date was for an underage ticket that night. First underage is $300 second is $600 something and the third is over $1000. This is a very rural town. in the surrounding towns underage tickets are less than $50, and the officers only hand them out if there is a disturbance. Here they stand outside the dorms trying to catch kids as they walk back to the dorms minding their own business.


----------



## ThePhotoRebellion (Feb 23, 2009)

Buy a camera that automatically writes images to a second memory card. 

OR

A lot of cameras will allow you to write two files at a time. While shooting the camera will write a raw and a jpg file. I've never had to use that feature, my guess is that it makes two folders, one for Raw the other for JPG. When they ask to see the images show them the JPG folder.

Shoot what you want to shoot, but don't be a smart ass to the Cops. That's asking for trouble.


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 23, 2009)

ya, im just sick of them ticketing all of the underage drinkers, ya it's illegal, but why dont they catch the real criminals. I know a lot of people that have moved to coke and heroin because they are afraid of getting breathalyzed.


----------



## Jon_Are (Feb 23, 2009)

> Next time say "No. With all due respect officer I believe that you do not have the law behind you in this case. I request you call your Watch Commander on this matter or someone in law enforcement who has more expertise on 1st Amendment Rights and privacy matters."



And then say, "Good day, sir!"

<pause>

"I said, _good day_!"


----------



## MikeBcos (Feb 23, 2009)

ThePhotoRebellion said:


> Buy a camera that automatically writes images to a second memory card.
> 
> OR
> 
> ...



I shoot Raw+jpg, they are both stored in the same folder. The camera displays the jpg on the screen but if you delete that it also deletes the Raw image.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Feb 23, 2009)

File a write complete with the Wisconsin State Attorney office. Be politely.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 23, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> Great info thanks. I asked and she told me I legally had to delete the photo's. The police are very corrupt in this town though. I will expose them all!!



Never ask a cop for legal advice, that's what lawyers are for.  Cops have no obligation to tell you the truth, in fact they're taught to lie to suspects to obtain information.


----------



## KvnO (Feb 23, 2009)

I have to agree with Battou on this one.  



rfosness88 said:


> ya, im just sick of them ticketing all of the underage drinkers, ya it's illegal, but why dont they catch the real criminals.



_Real_ criminals?  They're _all_ breaking the law (and regularly it sounds), they're _all_ criminals.  Shame on the police for enforcing the law.     



			
				rfosness88 said:
			
		

> I know a lot of people that have moved to coke and heroin because they are afraid of getting breathalyzed.



Doing drugs is stupid for any reason, but that's probably the one of the  dumbest I've ever heard.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 23, 2009)

KD5NRH said:


> If no crime was committed by taking the photos, then they are not her concern.  If a crime was committed, they are evidence, and deleting them would be tampering with that evidence.




How would they be evidence.  He didnt take a picture of the girl committing the crime just sitting in the car.


----------



## Seefutlung (Feb 23, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> And then say, "Good day, sir!"
> 
> <pause>
> 
> "I said, _good day_!"


 

precisely ... lol


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 23, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> I was shooting night life in my town and showing the overwhelming population of Police. Last year I had 4 officers in my dorm room at 4:00am(roommate and I were sleeping) they had to "change my court date" and try and pressure me into letting them search my room. My court date was for an underage ticket that night. First underage is $300 second is $600 something and the third is over $1000. This is a very rural town. in the surrounding towns underage tickets are less than $50, and the officers only hand them out if there is a disturbance. Here they stand outside the dorms trying to catch kids as they walk back to the dorms minding their own business.




I was with you right up til this point.  The cops have the right to protect the people that live in that town.  Under age drinking leads to all kinds of problems besides dui's and alcohol poisoning.


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 23, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> I was with you right up til this point.  The cops have the right to protect the people that live in that town.  Under age drinking leads to all kinds of problems besides dui's and alcohol poisoning.



If your drunk driving, committing other crimes, being belligerent, over intoxicated, violent...ect you deserve a ticket. If im a 20yr old quietly walking home to my dorm after 2-3 beers I do not deserve a $300 ticket. If I blow a .000001 while driving I do not deserve a DUI. I personally have not gotten any tickets, but I do not they should over crowd the city with police officers because they can make a lot of money on harmless people.


Rofls to the good day sir


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 23, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> If your drunk driving, committing other crimes, being belligerent, over intoxicated, violent...ect you deserve a ticket. If im a 20yr old quietly walking home to my dorm after 2-3 beers I do not deserve a $300 ticket. If I blow a .000001 while driving I do not deserve a DUI. I personally have not gotten any tickets, but I do not they should over crowd the city with police officers because they can make a lot of money on harmless people.
> 
> 
> Rofls to the good day sir


Think what you want but breaking the law is breaking the law.  I dont care if you are 21 at midnight and drink at 11:59 you are still knowingly breaking the law.  If you choose to break the law you also choose to suffer the consequences if caught.  This is the problem with most people who break the law.  

You know what the law is dont break it.  Plain and simple.  I know its against the law to speed however I do it every time I get in my car.  It is my choice not to follow the speed limit.  It doesnt matter if I am doing 31 in a 30 or 75 in a 55 the law has still been broken and I choose to deal with the consequences.  I just dont get the well I only kinda broke the law mentality.


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 23, 2009)

idk i guess i view it as a 10yr old selling lemonade without a business license.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 23, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> idk i guess i view it as a 10yr old selling lemonade without a business license.



Really?  WOW!  Congrats this is officially the most ignorant post on any message board I have even belonged to.  :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:


----------



## table1349 (Feb 23, 2009)

> rfosness88;1544087]ya, im just sick of them ticketing all of the underage drinkers, ya it's illegal, but why dont they catch the real criminals.


So tell me, What is a real criminal???  In the academy they never had a course on real criminals and unreal criminals.  We were taught that there are laws and people either followed the law or they didn't.  The ones that don't follow the law are the reason for the criminal court system.  

*Merriam Webster:*

Main Entry1* crim·i·nal*Pronunciation: \&#712;kri-m&#601;-n&#601;l, &#712;krim-n&#601;l\      
Function:_ adjective_ 
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French _criminal,_ from Late Latin _criminalis,_ from Latin _crimin-, crimen_ crime
Date:  15th century 1*:* relating to, involving, or being a crime <_criminal_ neglect>

2*:* relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <_criminal_ statistics> <brought _criminal_ action>

3*:* guilty of crime       ; _also_ *:* of or befitting a criminal <a _criminal_ mind>

4*:* disgraceful

I guess we should have let the 21 year old drunk driver go from a month or so ago that ran from the police, crashed her car into another vehicle and killed two people, cause she wasn't a *real criminal.* 

Funny thing about alcohol, drinkers tend to over indulge, especially young drinkers.  And young drinkers tend to think there is nothing wrong with it, and in that mental state they also see nothing wrong with driving.  The sad thing about this whole way of thinking. It takes serious injury or death to usually get someone out of the "breaking some of the laws really isn't bad" mentality. 



> I know a lot of people that have moved to coke and heroin because they are afraid of getting breathalyzed.


Right....and I know a lot of burglars that were afraid of going to jail for a year or two if they got caught with another persons stuff so they became rapist and serial killers instead.


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 23, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> Think what you want but breaking the law is breaking the law.  I dont care if you are 21 at midnight and drink at 11:59 you are still knowingly breaking the law.  If you choose to break the law you also choose to suffer the consequences if caught.  This is the problem with most people who break the law.



Have you ever heard of Kohlberg's moral stages? Making moral decisions based on the belief that the law is absolute is classic stage 4, which is still considered a primitive way of moral reasoning. People don't deserve to be punished simply because the law says so. Following the law only because it is the law got us nowhere in history, and it will get us nowhere now.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> Have you ever heard of Kohlberg's moral stages? Making moral decisions based on the belief that the law is absolute is classic stage 4, which is still considered a primitive way of moral reasoning. People don't deserve to be punished simply because the law says so. Following the law only because it is the law got us nowhere in history, and it will get us nowhere now.



That may be the most enlightened moral reasoning theory, but I don't think Kohlberg is going to make you feel better when you're handcuffed in the back of a police car at 2am.

I don't really care if I deserved to get punished; I care if I am actually getting punished and there is nothing I can do about it.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I guess we should have let the 21 year old drunk driver go from a month or so ago that ran from the police, crashed her car into another vehicle and killed two people, cause she wasn't a *real criminal.*
> 
> Funny thing about alcohol, drinkers tend to over indulge, especially young drinkers.  And young drinkers tend to think there is nothing wrong with it, and in that mental state they also see nothing wrong with driving.  The sad thing about this whole way of thinking. It takes serious injury or death to usually get someone out of the "breaking some of the laws really isn't bad" mentality.



Kind of an unfair counterargument.  It's my understanding that the other poster isn't condoning eliminating DUIs, drunk and disorderly conduct, etc.  He's just arguing that punishing the state of being drunk underage is a silly law in the sense that it is a government-knows-best protection for 20-year-old adults.  By all means, when a 20-year-old drives drunk he should be punished severely. I would be willing to bet the other poster would classify a DUI as a real crime.


----------



## DRoberts (Feb 23, 2009)

My only question would be if the girl in the back of the police car was a minor. If so I could see the officer _asking_ you to delete those photos. But as stated there was no legal bases for you to have to erase anything, or hand your equipment over. Stand up to these people and refuse.


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 23, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> That may be the most enlightened moral reasoning theory, but I don't think Kohlberg is going to make you feel better when you're handcuffed in the back of a police car at 2am.
> 
> I don't really care if I deserved to get punished; I care if I am actually getting punished and there is nothing I can do about it.



That's perfectly fine, but don't think you are doing the right thing by following the law. Whether you want to stand up for your rights or be walked on by authority figures is your choice, but don't think standing up for your rights will be easy. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't get off easy, and neither will you, however that does not make your actions wrong. The post I was responding to had a condescending tone, as if he was scolding the poster for doing the wrong thing. If anything, standing up for your rights is more courageous than wrong.


----------



## DRoberts (Feb 23, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> Kind of an unfair counterargument. It's my understanding that the other poster isn't condoning eliminating DUIs, drunk and disorderly conduct, etc. He's just arguing that punishing the state of being drunk underage is a silly law in the sense that it is a government-knows-best protection for 20-year-old adults. By all means, when a 20-year-old drives drunk he should be punished severely. I would be willing to bet the other poster would classify a DUI as a real crime.


 
Yes but this leaves one to rationalize that the only "unfair" laws are the ones that affect the individuals wants. To a 19 or 20 year old "minor in possession" laws are stupid. So should they be abiolished? To a vigilante murderer "murder laws are stupid, so should they then be abolished as well? 
There's no way to please everyone, but laws are needed. So as a society of responsible people we either respect them and accept the consequence for breaking them, or we go to a complete anarchist society and let the strong survive.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

DRoberts said:


> Yes but this leaves one to rationalize that the only "unfair" laws are the ones that affect the individuals wants. To a 19 or 20 year old "minor in possession" laws are stupid. So should they be abiolished? To a vigilante murderer "murder laws are stupid, so should they then be abolished as well?
> There's no way to please everyone, but laws are needed. So as a society of responsible people we either respect them and accept the consequence for breaking them, or we go to a complete anarchist society and let the strong survive.



Well I'm not really arguing one way or another, but the argument is that "unfair" laws are any laws that punish victimless crimes.  That is the main distinction the other poster had in mind.

I agree with you that once a law is in place it is best to just follow it -- for the most part.  If you do break it, accept the consequences.  However, the above poster is right that not all laws have the same benefit to society, and perhaps their resources are best diverted elsewhere.


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 23, 2009)

DRoberts said:


> Yes but this leaves one to rationalize that the only "unfair" laws are the ones that affect the individuals wants. To a 19 or 20 year old "minor in possession" laws are stupid. So should they be abiolished? To a vigilante murderer "murder laws are stupid, so should they then be abolished as well?
> There's no way to please everyone, but laws are needed. So as a society of responsible people we either respect them and accept the consequence for breaking them, or we go to a complete anarchist society and let the strong survive.



"I don't want to sound like Spiro           Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he           wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I           think you would have chaos."

"At stage 4, in         contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with _society_ _as a whole. _Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting         authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is         maintained."

You are basically arguing that the only reason people follow laws is because they fear the legal ramifications (Stage 1 behavior). Considering that the majority of society has moral reasoning ability beyond stage 1, your scenario is unrealistic. I am not contending the need for laws, I am contending whether these laws should be held as absolute. Humans are fallible, so who is to say that the laws made by humans are right in the first place? I'm sure the Jews living in Poland during the 40s would disagree with your argument. Do the right thing because it is right, not because the law states that it is right.

Judging from the information given by the poster, the intentions of the local laws come into question. If would seem that the city is more interested in picking the pockets of legal adults rather than protecting the public.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 23, 2009)

Do you guys really understand what is going on?  Criminals _know_ what the law is, they just don't care.

Just like how _I_ know the law, but I choose not to obey certain ones.
I know the consequences, and I will face them if I have to.  There are some laws that I feel are not constitutional, so I _choose_ not to comply.  If I had a good enough lawyer, I could probably get off - but I probably can't afford that kind of lawyer, so I accept the consequences if I get caught.  I don't break many laws, and the ones I do break don't draw much attention so I usually "get away with it".  I don't feel that I'm "getting away" with anything though - I feel that I am within my constitutional rights and that the laws I choose to ignore are an infringement on those rights.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 23, 2009)

Just one example-
The seat belt law

I wear my seat belt most of the time, but I don't think we need a law for it.  It should be your own personal choice.

The 'seat belt law' is entirely about generating revenue.  That's it.
(Do you really think they care about your safety?)


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Just one example-
> The seat belt law
> 
> I wear my seat belt most of the time, but I don't think we need a law for it.  It should be your own personal choice.
> ...



That's fine, but it sure isn't an unconstitutional law.  So don't plan on winning any appeals if you can ever afford that fancy lawyer you mentioned.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 23, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> That's fine, but it sure isn't an unconstitutional law.  So don't plan on winning any appeals if you can ever afford that fancy lawyer you mentioned.



Didn't say it was.  We have more than enough un-constitutional laws (every single gun law?), but I don't want to get into that too much because it is a touchy subject around here.


Just an example of a law that many people ignore, and seems to serve no purpose other than making money.  If they really cared about safety they would go after the real problem.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Didn't say it was.  We have more than enough un-constitutional laws (every single gun law?), but I don't want to get into that too much because it is a touchy subject around here.
> 
> 
> Just an example of a law that many people ignore, and seems to serve no purpose other than making money.  If they really cared about safety they would go after the real problem.



Ah ok, sorry about that then.  I misunderstood what it was an example of.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 23, 2009)

Sarcasm?  (hard to tell sometimes...)

I didn't mean it as an example of an un-constitutional law, just an example of an unnecessary law.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Sarcasm?  (hard to tell sometimes...)
> 
> I didn't mean it as an example of an un-constitutional law, just an example of an unnecessary law.



No sarcasm; I honestly misunderstood.  

However, out of respect to the OP, we should try to get this thread back on topic.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 23, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> No sarcasm; I honestly misunderstood.



After reading it again, I can see how it could happen.
(I wasn't very clear.)

...Anyway.  Back on topic...


----------



## Battou (Feb 24, 2009)

rfosness88 said:


> I was shooting night life in my town and showing the overwhelming population of Police. Last year I had 4 officers in my dorm room at 4:00am(roommate and I were sleeping) they had to "change my court date" and try and pressure me into letting them search my room. My court date was for an underage ticket that night. First underage is $300 second is $600 something and the third is over $1000. This is a very rural town. in the surrounding towns underage tickets are less than $50, and the officers only hand them out if there is a disturbance. Here they stand outside the dorms trying to catch kids as they walk back to the dorms minding their own business.



I still fail to see a valid reason for the presence of a camera here. An overwhelming police presence? Some people actually want that, You will understand that better when you are older. Where I live you can't buy that and I live smack dab in the middle of two overlapping jurisdictions (Seneca Nation Marshals, Catt County Sheriff) in addition to local and state police departments. 

This overwhelming police presence is there for a reason, now tax payers are not going to sit and pay a dozen police officers to sit at HQ all night waiting for phone calls, it doesn't work that way. Sure, sitting in wait for a sure thing citation is a dirty tactic, but it's not illegal, if it where DUI checkpoints, patrol cars stationed at road work sites and many other similar tactics would be illegal. These tactics generate visible results that maintains that presence for when it is really needed. I'd put money on it that that little town you live in is one place where the standard issue rapist is likely caught within hours of commission/report of the crime, where it could take weeks or months around here. From what you put in that post I quoted it sounds like you had half a notion to start a battle that was lost long ago, I'm sorry but staying out late drinking or whatever else is not a right, but a privilege reserved for those at whatever age stated in the penal codes for the given jurisdiction. 

I'm sorry you got burned on this by having deleted your photos but, what they are doing there is not of real consequence. Going back to my previous post, Police officers handing out citations isn't really a photoworthy event, Doing so only gives the impression of looking to stir up trouble. Be it public or private, the police departments job is to maintain the peace and if they see anything that gives them the impression of stirring up trouble it is their duty to try to dispatch it before it becomes disturbing the peace. This is why they approached you. This little snare has been abused as of late in the name of national security but I believe this is one occasion where it was not. You gave them the impression of trouble making and then walked right into their trap. Again I am sorry you got burned, but atleast you learned something in that you do not have to delete your images when they ask. I also hope that this helps you be a little more conscientious in your situation weighing and decision making keeping in mind that, just because you can does not mean you should.

*EDIT*

Dammit, that'll teach me to take forever posting in a hot button topic...now I have a dozen posts to catch up on.


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 24, 2009)

Battou said:


> I still fail to see a valid reason for the presence of a camera here. An overwhelming police presence? Some people actually want that, You will understand that better when you are older. Where I live you can't buy that and I live smack dab in the middle of two overlapping jurisdictions (Seneca Nation Marshals, Catt County Sheriff) in addition to local and state police departments.



Who are you to determine which reasons are valid for the presence of a camera?



> This overwhelming police presence is there for a reason, now tax payers are not going to sit and pay a dozen police officers to sit at HQ all night waiting for phone calls, it doesn't work that way.



No, it doesn't, but taxpayers don't pay thousands of dollars in taxes so cops can harass harmless adults. If cops are bored, they should either work on catching the criminals who are actually harmful, or they should be doing a sudoku. Entertaining themselves with picking the pockets of honest adults benefits no one but the city's bank account.



> Sure, sitting in wait for a sure thing citation is a dirty tactic, but it's not illegal, if it where DUI checkpoints, patrol cars stationed at road work sites and many other similar tactics would be illegal.



DUI checkpoints are a completely different story. A DUI endangers both the driver and innocent bystanders. Walking home quietly endangers no one.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 24, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> No, it doesn't, but taxpayers don't pay thousands of dollars in taxes so cops can harass harmless adults. If cops are bored, they should either work on catching the criminals who are actually harmful, or they should be doing a sudoku. Entertaining themselves with picking the pockets of honest adults benefits no one but the city's bank account.


Welcome to the very nature of government.  It's horribly in efficient, often does more damage than it does good, and it bleeds you dry in the process.

It's only going to get worse.  Once you empower those cretins (politicians / government workers), they continue to usurp all the power they can and take more and more from you individually.  It's a never ending process that ends either in rebellion or a total collapse of government.  Sometimes it takes 50 years, other times it takes a 1000... but all governments are destine to failure.

But I digress.


----------



## ~Stella~ (Feb 24, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Just one example-
> The seat belt law
> 
> I wear my seat belt most of the time, but I don't think we need a law for it. It should be your own personal choice.
> ...


 
If you (general you, not you in particular) are fool enough not to wear one, then I don't see why I should be concerned about your life either, unless of course you are a minor and can't make your own decisions yet. It's not about safety as much as finances and since I (and most other taxpayers) don't want to foot the bill for the catastrophic injuries for those fools who prefer to endanger themselves, I am a-ok with that law.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 24, 2009)

~Stella~ said:


> If you (general you, not you in particular) are fool enough not to wear one, then I don't see why I should be concerned about your life either, unless of course you are a minor and can't make your own decisions yet. It's not about safety as much as finances and since I (and most other taxpayers) don't want to foot the bill for the catastrophic injuries for those fools who prefer to endanger themselves, I am a-ok with that law.


I wear seat belts, but seat belt and helmet laws are nothing more than revenue generators for the state.  I think they tax me enough already, I don't think they need additional methods for financial harassment.  The only time you should be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt or wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is if you're uninsured.  If you're insured, there's no cost to the tax paying public if you injure yourself.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 24, 2009)

> anubis404;1544742]Who are you to determine which reasons are valid for the presence of a camera?



Who are you to decide which laws are worth following and which aren't? Kind of judgmental don't you think considering your previous post?  There is the crux of the problem in many cases.  The concept of I am all there is and the world revolves around me and what I want. 



> No, it doesn't, but taxpayers don't pay thousands of dollars in taxes so cops can harass harmless adults. If cops are bored, they should either work on catching the criminals who are actually harmful, or they should be doing a sudoku. Entertaining themselves with picking the pockets of honest adults benefits no one but the city's bank account.



Then quit whining and make law enforcement a career. Besides if you are an *HONEST* adult then it doesn't become a problem.   



> DUI checkpoints are a completely different story. A DUI endangers both the driver and innocent bystanders. *Walking home quietly endangers no one.*



Who says they don't.  When you are intoxicated the fist impairment is to judgment.  The first physical impairment it to coordination.  Put the two together and walking where you don't belong like a street, ignoring traffic control devices, crossing in traffic are all life threatening.  Rationalizing behavior is just an excuse.  And we all know what excuses are like. 

Oh and yes I have heard of Kohlberg's moral stages.  Nice theory.  But life is lived in the real world not the theoretical one.


----------



## rfosness88 (Feb 24, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> No, it doesn't, but taxpayers don't pay thousands of dollars in taxes so cops can harass harmless adults. If cops are bored, they should either work on catching the criminals who are actually harmful, or they should be doing a sudoku. Entertaining themselves with picking the pockets of honest adults benefits no one but the city's bank account.



Thank You! 

Im all for lots of police so they can catch rapists, murderers, thieves, and such. They can even ticket the drunk guy walking home *IF *he is causing a disturbance, being disorderly, harming himself of others! If im walking to my dorm minding my own business, and an officer is waiting outside the building and I blow a .001 I do not deserve a $300-$1000 ticket. If im driving wasted thats a different story. I thought I already posted this.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 24, 2009)

Ok for the seatbelt law people.  Seat belts do save lives.  More so than cause a loss of life although it does happen from time to time.  Part of the reason why seat belt laws were enacted is because of the cost to insurance companies.  If it costs them millions due to treating the injuries that were suffered by people not wearing them raise the rates.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 24, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> No, it doesn't, but taxpayers don't pay thousands of dollars in taxes so cops can harass harmless adults. If cops are bored, they should either work on catching the criminals who are actually harmful, or they should be doing a sudoku. Entertaining themselves with picking the pockets of honest adults benefits no one but the city's bank account.



Yeah the OP stated that the students out number the population of the town residents.  So chances are one of the more relevant crimes in the town is under age drinking.  In a town with a population of 10,000 or so as the OP stated I am not thinking that murder, theft and rape are happening every day.  The other issue is that under age drinking is probable cause to search/detain/arrest people.  Usually along with the drinking and college kids come drugs.  So now that they busted them for drinking they can look and see if they have drugs or other illegal things such as fake ids.  




anubis404 said:


> DUI checkpoints are a completely different story. A DUI endangers both the driver and innocent bystanders. *Walking home quietly endangers no one.*



Not always true.  I saw a guy just a week ago being very quiet walking his drunk ass home.  He then fell out into the street in front of traffic.  If a person were to have hit them it would surely affect them for the rest of their lives. 

The laws that our society has are there for a reason like them or not.  You still have to follow them or be prepared to pay the consequences.  There are plenty of laws I dislike and dont follow.  I also know that if I break that law and get caught I am going to have to deal with the consequences.


----------



## Battou (Feb 26, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> Who are you to determine which reasons are valid for the presence of a camera?



I'm not the one who is to determine which reasons are valid for the presence of a camera, Common sence is. As one who shoots under police presence with out a press pass with frequency and has never had any trouble at all. I've been confronted but never bothered, I can not see fault in that logic. Call me presumptuous if you want, but I am telling you there was no justification for a photo in this occurance. 

Who am I to say whether or not there was justification for a photo, Some one with a hell of a lot more experience shooting under the watchfull eye of the police department and has come to know a lot of what they are looking for and how they spot it.


I have sat here and read the original post and many of the subsiquent posts by the original poster and this by all outward appearences is an everyday occurance. Had this been a three vehicle MVA or a multimillion dollar drugbust it would be a different story, but no one died, no one got hurt, no property was damaged, Why photograph it?


Do not get me wrong, I have atleast one felony and a handful of misdemeanors under my belt, It's not like I am not all buddy buddy with the cops. I am telling you, a little common sense and some simple situation weighing goes a long ways to keeping your self out of the PD's eye, even when they are everywhere.




anubis404 said:


> No, it doesn't, but taxpayers don't pay thousands of dollars in taxes so cops can harass harmless adults. If cops are bored, they should either work on catching the criminals who are actually harmful, or they should be doing a sudoku. Entertaining themselves with picking the pockets of honest adults benefits no one but the city's bank account.



Harmless is not the question here. Taxpayers pay thousands of dollars in taxes to see results, those results are listed in the news paper under police reports. No results, results in budget reduction inevitably leading to reduction of police forces resulting in reduced capibility to handle serious and more harmful offences, simple logic.




anubis404 said:


> DUI checkpoints are a completely different story. A DUI endangers both the driver and innocent bystanders. Walking home quietly endangers no one.



Um...no, it is no different, the police sit and wait for the violator to come to them, the caliber of the violation and danger to the public has no bearing to the application of my reference.


----------



## Moglex (Feb 26, 2009)

~Stella~ said:


> Ebonics?  Was race really pertinent to the story?



I read that as 'they shouted something unintelligable'.

I doubt anyone would have started whining if OP had said "they shouted something in French".

People really should realise that there is nothing wrong with being black and black people do not need (and in my experience do not like) to be defended against the fact that they are.


----------



## Arch (Feb 26, 2009)

I really don't think this thread has much more life in it, other than to nit pick other peoples comments, as in the last few pages... so its closure time.


----------

