# Legalities of photographing a car accident?



## prodigy2k7

I assume its legal to take pictures of a car accident? My girlfriend said she tried to take a picture of a car accident and a cop said if your not involved in the accident you cant take any pictures. I disagree but i am not certain. Any comments?


----------



## NateS

I don't see how that can be true.  What about all the times that News Channels video tape accidents from helicopters as they happen and afterward.  They weren't "involved" either.  I think you have a right in public to take a picture of anything you see.

If that ever happened to me, I would have asked for the statute number of that law and told them that if they couldn't provide it and prevented me from shooting then they'd have a big lawsuit.  I'd never actually sue them, but the threat would get them to back off if it wasn't actually a law.  If it is actually a law they would have no problem giving me the statute number.


----------



## Big Mike

I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be allowed...if it's in a public place.  Although, failure to obey an order from a police officer can get you into trouble.


----------



## NateS

Big Mike said:


> I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be allowed...if it's in a public place.  Although, failure to obey an order from a police officer can get you into trouble.



I'd be willing to bet that failure to follow orders is only if you are breaking the law.  If a police officer tells you to run a five miles in a skirt in the middle of the day, downtown, you wouldn't be in trouble for not doing so.  They can only enforce the law and only (Legally) order you to do something if it is in regards to law breaking of some sort.


----------



## Village Idiot

You're girlfriend got snubbed for not knowing her rights. You're allowed to photograph, but you're not allowed to be in the way of any emergency personell. So if she's shooting from the other side of the street and not in their way, then it's perfectly legal. 

Now the ethics are a different matter. Some people find it in poor taste, especially if you're just shooting for "fun". Of course, fun is in quotes because we know it's not fun to record other people's misery (supposedly), but if you're not planning on using the photos for anything people may accuse you of being a heartless bastard(ess) with no conscience.


----------



## Village Idiot

NateS said:


> I'd be willing to bet that failure to follow orders is only if you are breaking the law. If a police officer tells you to run a five miles in a skirt in the middle of the day, downtown, you wouldn't be in trouble for not doing so. They can only enforce the law and only (Legally) order you to do something if it is in regards to law breaking of some sort.


 
Even though an officer ignorant of the laws could arrest you for not running file miles in a skirt if they wanted to. 

A man was arrested outside of a Best Buy in Ohio for not showing an officer his ID. He gave him all his information, but there's no law that states you're required to carry identification. He was cleared after showing in court with a lawyer, but that doesn't change the fact he was arrested for it.


----------



## v1001

More than likely they are just trying to get people to move on and not crowd the area. It was just a quick way of getting her away. You start getting tons of traffic slowing down, and tons of bystanders gathering they just need em to move on. Don't be so quick to not oblige and put up a fight. They are there to just help, thats their main concern. Her getting a good picture is rightly not high on the priority list.


----------



## usayit

This is thread is basically the same as the numerous "photographer's rights" threads that popped up recently.  Essentially, you are in the right but the officer always and I mean always has the upper hand.  As VI and NateS put it so eloquently   .... the cop can and will make for a very unpleasant experience.  They can and will do everything in their power to maintain control of the situation.. using whatever means necessary.  right/wrong is determined in court not on the streets.

Two words... Disorderly Conduct.  

Yeh.. it will be dropped in court but after you spend an unpleasent few hours at the station.  Trust me .. I know.  and yes.. I hate it.


----------



## mallard

Village Idiot said:


> Now the ethics are a different matter. Some people find it in poor taste, especially if you're just shooting for "fun". Of course, fun is in quotes because we know it's not fun to record other people's misery (supposedly), but if you're not planning on using the photos for anything people may accuse you of being a heartless bastard(ess) with no conscience.



if people get worried about ethics then you would have no more photojournalism.....especially covering any sort of war or crisis.


----------



## Joves

Village Idiot said:


> Even though an officer ignorant of the laws could arrest you for not running file miles in a skirt if they wanted to.
> 
> A man was arrested outside of a Best Buy in Ohio for not showing an officer his ID. He gave him all his information, but there's no law that states you're required to carry identification. He was cleared after showing in court with a lawyer, but that doesn't change the fact he was arrested for it.


 I remember that story. He actually has good grounds for a suit against the city. And that is why I would have still shot the accident. Ive shot several and recieved dirty looks from the officers but, never been told to stop. I was going to submit them the the local paper but they didnt want them because, there were no deaths associated with them. Talk about no ethics.


----------



## table1349

prodigy2k7 said:


> I assume its legal to take pictures of a car accident? My girlfriend said she tried to take a picture of a car accident and a cop said if your not involved in the accident you cant take any pictures. I disagree but i am not certain. Any comments?



It all depends on where she was shooting from.  If you are in the accident scene, well yes it is illegal because you are interfering with the investigation.  They are conducting an investigation of what occurred because amazingly enough, people some times tend to exaggerate the facts and we want the truth.  Debris, skid marks, etc. provide those facts. We do not want them disturbed.  

If she is outside of the scene, then unless she is blocking vehicular traffic or other pedestrians she is fine.  Just keep in mind that what we consider the scene may be bigger than what you consider the scene. If a car strikes a light pole then the light pole and the ground around it is in the scene.  Don't lean on the light pole.   If she is where other pedestrians are walking etc, and they are not being shooed off, she is fine.

I once had the beginning of a run in with an ambulance chasing lawyer.  He heard the accident from his office and ran out to talk to the victims in one of the vehicles.  Not to see if they were injured but to drum up business for a law suite.  (_They were not injured by the way, That was the first question we asked_)  He was hindering the investigation, there was paperwork to be filled out by all the people involved and statements to get.  I instructed him to leave my scene.  He advised that he was there to speak to his clients.  First off they were not his clients, not yet at that point at least.  

I asked him if his _"clients"_ were the suspects of a criminal activity and when he advised me no they were not, I concurred with his statement and again told him to get out of my scene now or he would go to jail for obstruction. I then reminded him that he had no constitutional right to speak to them at that time as the were not suspects of any criminal act.  They were not in legal jeopardy.  

I then advised him I was going to list him as a witness if he continued to speak to them.  He realized at that point that as a witness he and his firm could not represent them as it would be a conflict of interest.  He left, we finished the accident investigation, the other guy got his tickets, _(yep he deserved tickets in the plural for this one)_  everyone went on their way and that was the end of it.  

The news media showed up and took photos, no problem.  They stayed out of the scene.  I did politely remind the news paper photographer, _(a friend of mine)_ that if he took a photo of me from the back side I had 620 *FRIENDS* that all had ticket books and they would all be waiting for him between where he was and his office.    It was a wonderful profile shot in the paper the next day. :lmao:


----------



## Easy_Target

You're legally allowed to, but the cops don't like it. Why? In case you capture anything on film that contradicts the police testimony as to what happened. They claim that you're obstructing an investigation, which is complete and utter crap usually. 

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/ma...e-undercover-officer-sparks-arres/?news-break

Arrested for taking pictures of a police raid.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3015&art_id=vn20080609062905436C112919

"We saw a lot of people there and the police started shooting rubber bullets at them. I took pictures and then one police officer dragged me into a van. I said I was a (Cape Times) photographer, but he didn't listen."

http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2007/11/the-crime-of-ph.html

"Amateur photographer Bogdan Mohora was jailed in Seattle last year when he snapped a few photos of police officers arresting a man."


http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/man_arrested_for_unlawful_photography/11576

"The cell phone photographer says the arrest was intimidation, but the deputy says he feared for his life. &#8220;Here&#8217;s a guy who takes me out of the car and arrests me in front of my kids.  For what?  To take a picture of a police officer?&#8221; said Scott Conover.A Johnson County sheriff&#8217;s deputy arrested Scott Conover for unlawful photography. &#8220;He says you took a picture of me.  It&#8217;s illegal to take a picture of a law enforcement officer,&#8221; said Conover."


http://carlosmiller.com/

Miller was beaten and arrested for taking pictures of cops.

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=801977

"Local restrictions on photography in public places are legitimate the Home Secretary has stated in a letter to the National Union of Journalists."


http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=104763

Police tell him to go to press area. Cameraman asks where press area is. Police refuse to answer. Assault him on tape.

http://glassbeadcollective.blip.tv/file/784711/

NYC, police provoke, strong arm, arrest and beat critical mass cyclists. Police then proceed to intimidate, assault and arrest photographers for documenting the arrests/abuse of critical mass riders.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/...ale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

Security at D.C. train station prohibits people from taking pictures of the station because of policy. Amtrak official says that there is absolutely no rule that prohibits photography. Rent-a-cop comes up to Fox cameraman and tells him he's not allowed to take pictures inside the station, in front of Amtrak official who just said that there is no rule against taking photos.

http://www.news9.com/global/video/f...chPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=88671427

Photographer catches photos of car accident. Troopers throw him into squad car and arrest him after refusing to comply with their orders to delete the images.



It's reasons like this that I plan on moving out of the United States.


----------



## Joves

It is clear abuse of power. I would like to see some law suits or, would hope there are some being filed. It seems lately those in authority seem to have the George Bush 9/11 syndrome where they think they can do what they want because, they are the ones in charge. It isnt so for now. Unfortunately we are heading down a fascist path. WHat irks me is far too many people dont care.


----------



## usayit

People do care.... The problem is the system doesn't work in their favor.  Unless you have the time, resources, and money it is not easy (like news and media agencies).  We can discuss all we want just as long as those that were confronted by law enforcement under such circumstances are not blamed for "not standing up for their rights" (like in another thread).

btw.... what we are discussing here has nothing to do with Fascism.  It is a term that is tough enough to define much less throw around.  Perhaps you meant something along the lines of a "military state" or "police state".



> I then advised him I was going to list him as a witness if he continued to speak to them



Interesting tactic Gryph... 
The frequency of these types of threads must be a bit disconcerting...  unfortunately... 


respectfully distrust...


----------



## tirediron

mallard said:


> *if people get worried about ethics* then you would have no more photojournalism.....especially covering any sort of war or crisis.


 WTF?    Wow....


----------



## Village Idiot

mallard said:


> if people get worried about ethics then you would have no more photojournalism.....especially covering any sort of war or crisis.


 
Not at all. Taking pictures of a bloody and devastating accident scene with multiple fatalities to submit to a paper for a story and taking the pictures just to have for personal viewing pleasure are two completely different thing. Depending on your views and ethics will determine whether or not you deem that appropriate. I know a popular vote would say that the photojournalist is in the right and the casual photographer is in the wrong though.



Easy_Target said:


> It's reasons like this that I plan on moving out of the United States.


 
HAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAA!!!!

Where? Africa? Europe is much worse. I think we have it easy in comparison. One guy I know that just moved back to the US said you can't even do candids of random people on the street in France without getting harrassed.

Ever see the ad campaign they have going in the UK where it tells people to call the cops if they see a photographer because the photographer might be a terrorist?


----------



## Bifurcator

usayit said:


> This is thread is basically the same as the numerous "photographer's rights" threads that popped up recently.  Essentially, you are in the right but the officer always and I mean always has the upper hand.



Of all the officials and professionals we have to deal with in our lives the police are the easiest to sue. And they pay for it personally out of pocket! Mentioning that to them (politely) when they site bogus non-existent laws will normally quench their wrath in a big hurry. Especially if you add a phrase they themselves are familiar with like, "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride". (or is it the opposite? I forget.)

At least for now that's still a pretty safe bet. Current policy and testing in many if not most districts is insuring however that the dumbest and meanest people are hired on so this may not be the case in a few years. You'll still be able to sue them but you'll have to tent to your broken arm all during the hearings.


----------



## patrickt

Assuming the statement of what the poster says his girlfriend says the policeman said is accurate and assuming no other relevant facts that weren't mentioned and unless there is some local ordinance, which I doubt, I think the police officer was not accurately stating the law.

In thirty years as a police officer, I don't recall anyone who wasn't involved wanting a photo of an accident. Oh, there were plenty who wanted photos of dead bodies but I don't remember any who simply wanted a photo of an accident.


----------



## GermanyBert

Bifurcator said:


> Current policy and testing in many if not most districts is insuring however that the dumbest and meanest people are hired on so this may not be the case in a few years.


 
What a ridiculous remark. What is the source of your information on what "many if not most districts" LEO hiring policies and testing procedures are?


----------



## patrickt

"Of all the officials and professionals we have to deal with in our lives the police are the easiest to sue. And they pay for it personally out of pocket!"

Baloney. It's covered by insurance bought by the department as long as the action involves the officers work. That's also why it's easy to sue police departments. Since it doesn't cost anyone involved and the insurance company pays, they're happy to settle whether the lawsuit has merit or not.


----------



## RMThompson

What bothers me the most, is not the fact that most people KNOW the legality - but most people choose to ACCEPT the abuse of power.

The only way to remind over zealous police officers of OUR rights is to express them. Much in the way copyright infringement must be enforced everytime or you lose the right to enforce it, we have to make sure we fight against those who are taking away our rights - or we have no business claiming rights.

Napoleon once said, negatively, that "_a man will fight harder for his interests than his rights."_ And in this case, the "interest" is to not be hassled by police. When being hassled we might be apt to be MORE interested in going home and watching American Idol that night than we are interested in fighting for the right of taking a picture of a car crash.

I'm not calling for people to go out and start taking pictures for the sole purpose of having an officer hassle you, in order to insist on your rights, but rather IF and WHEN the situation DOES come up - don't sit idly by while someone strips you of your first ammendment.


----------



## Bifurcator

Village Idiot said:


> Where? Africa? Europe is much worse. I think we have it easy in comparison.



He's smart to want to move. Red China is honestly more free than the USA right now. Really! Yeah the UK and that block is same or worse (just recently) but that's it. Africa would be great. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, all better! Japan, Korea, Taiwan, most of South America (not Mexico) all much freer than the USA "by comparison". I'm NOT saying America "sucks" but she's in big trouble right now!

In Japan I can (and have seen it done many times) walk up to a cop and start pushing them around and yelling at them. You're not arrested, they don't call for backup (unless it's in a really troubled area with a bad reputation), they don't get physical, etc. Unlike "The West" they're not trained to believe that they are your master. They act like our equals here. When you're finished yelling at them they ask you if you're OK and if you need anything... like an escort home or to use their phone, etc.. 

We have what we call "Bousouzoku" here which is I guess, like the Hell's Angels used to be when they still had nads. They ride with no lic plates or bent in half, often no helmets, they refuse to stop for red lights, they _refuse_ to stop for the police. You know what the police here do? Follow them around and make sure no one gets hurt. Arrest the one's that fall over and call their moms. If mom or dad doesn't stop their kids from acting up after three times the courts get to say something. Usually some schooling and a fine. Even so - in that process, there are no "arrests" made usually. The communities here still work so that saves us. Those bikers are not considered "trash" or scum by the cops or the society. They are human beings and we all need to rebel sometimes. It's part of being human (if you're not drinking the sodium-fluoride that is). So why punish people for being people? Most other countries don't.

As for real (practiced) freedom if you want to open a business (store front, factory, photography shop) in your home or garage or tear down the building all together and turn it into a pay parking lot it's no problem. Just do it. If you don't pay your taxes and they don't even start counting until after 3 years, you are NEVER jailed - unless you are also committing fraud or something bad against the people. No debtor's prison here like there is in the USA. 

That's Nagoya with two and a half million people stuffed into an area half the size of LA city. The area around here smaller than LA County, is home to nine million.  

There are no mass, forced, or pushed vaccinations here , there are no nazi-like child services, there is no nazi-like "family planning" organizations. And by nazi-like I mean the nazis are the ones who founded or put into practice those kinds of programs and etc.. (It's all about eugenics there then - and in the US now.)

There are more political and non-violent "offenders" in the adult corrections systems in the USA than in all the rest of the world combined - this is factual data. There are way more adults per capita currently (and for the past 35 years that I know of), imprisoned in the USA than in any other country - period. (And the VAST majority are in for non-violent victimless crimes!)





I could go on and on and on for ever making irrefutable point after point showing how bad the Americans and "The West" have it and how brainwashed the citizenry is into thinking that they are the freest but I guess we get the idea from this little bit. I say if Easy_Target wants to move out he should do it. Especially sooner rather than later because it looks like the masters of the US want to collapse the economy in order to eliminate the middle class and create a newer larger class of surfs there. When/if they do  it's not going to be fun - even for the wealthy!


----------



## RMThompson

I've said it so many times, I've added it my signature:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. *Benjamin Franklin*, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759_


----------



## Bifurcator

patrickt said:


> "Of all the officials and professionals we have to deal with in our lives the police are the easiest to sue. And they pay for it personally out of pocket!"
> 
> Baloney.



Hotdogs.



"Law enforcement officers face many stressful situations inherent in their profession, including the threat of being sued and held personally liable."

URL This is from an official FBI discussion memo on the  "Schofield Immunity Defense bill" - that didn't pass BTW. 

-- 
Anyway, that's my part in this subtopic of this thread. I don't want to keep it going. It might get closed or something and I think it's a useful thread.


----------



## Emerana

Wow I sure wished I lived in a place that cops let people run red lights and didnt do anything.  Where can I get a visa?


----------



## usayit

Bifurcator said:


> Of all the officials and professionals we have to deal with in our lives the police are the easiest to sue. And they pay for it personally out of pocket! Mentioning that to them (politely) when they site bogus non-existent laws will normally quench their wrath in a big hurry.



My observation is the complete opposite... at least in NJ and NY


----------



## Bifurcator

@Emerana & others,
I added some links to my post (above) BTW.

@usayit
Really? Yeah, I guess every area is different. This is what I'm seeing on publicly posted videos and what's being said on internet radio/podcasts. I've never put it to the test and since I don't live there...  It's only 2nd hand info and pretty non-specific.


----------



## Village Idiot

How hard is it to get deported from Japan?


----------



## Easy_Target

usayit said:


> My observation is the complete opposite... at least in NJ and NY


Seriously. They say, "bring that lawsuit, you can talk to my union."



RMThompson said:


> Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. *Benjamin Franklin*, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759_


It's a misquote and misattributed apparently.

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605



GermanyBert said:


> What a ridiculous remark. What is the source of your information on what "many if not most districts" LEO hiring policies and testing procedures are?


There were two instances that I know of where candidates were turned down after they scored too high on the police entrance exam (one in Mass., one in NY).



Bifurcator said:


> Of all the officials and professionals we have to deal with in our lives the police are the easiest to sue. And they pay for it personally out of pocket! Mentioning that to them (politely) when they site bogus non-existent laws will normally quench their wrath in a big hurry. Especially if you add a phrase they themselves are familiar with like, "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride". (or is it the opposite? I forget.)
> 
> At least for now that's still a pretty safe bet. Current policy and testing in many if not most districts is insuring however that the dumbest and meanest people are hired on so this may not be the case in a few years. You'll still be able to sue them but you'll have to tent to your broken arm all during the hearings.


Actually, they'll give you another beating for threatening to sue them. On top of the beating they gave you for minding your own business. Then they'll throw another charge on you because they had to exert effort when beating you.


----------



## Bifurcator

Village Idiot said:


> How hard is it to get deported from Japan?



Depends. On the year. They change it kinda often. Like for example after three or four years of "persians" coming here, overstaying their visas, and with about 70% of them selling meth on the streets, they cracked down (no pun intended) and started deporting them actively. 

Typically, if you're an actual criminal type and disregard the safety of others by armed robbery or the alike they will surely deport you. If your crimes are victimless (casual drug use), drunk in public, disorderly conduct, a bar fight, or even minor like bicycle theft, shop-lifting, DWI, light vandalism, ummm.. others then if it even goes to court they consider your visa status before deciding. If you're overstay you go, if you're visitor status and you act like a butt-head you might go, if you're visitor status and you apologize (paying restitution or etc) you stay, if you're permanent resident status or spouse sponsored then you're treated like a citizen for the most part and deportation is usually not considered.

But the "cops & robbers" mentality of the the west doesn't exist here. If someone gets busted for shoplifting the officer takes your name and calls your mom. If it's an adult and they're obviously poor or homeless the cop will more often than not talk to the store keep and pretend he can't even see the perp. even if he's standing right there. If you're an adult with a clept-o-fetish a report is written and you sign a paper promising not to do it again - no arrest is made. 

But this all varies widely from city to city, prefecture to prefecture. It depends who's running things at the station and what kinds of problems they're dealing with so it's hard for anyone to say "this is the way it is" un-empirically.

Usually people are into being adults (being responsible for their own actions) so showing humility and apologizing for something you did without thinking (as we all do occasionally) usually solves the problem - whatever it is. People don't use the court system here to do that. Law suits here for example are pretty rare. 

OK, now I'm rambling... I'll stop. 



Easy_Target said:


> Actually, they'll give you another beating for threatening to sue them. On top of the beating they gave you for minding your own business. Then they'll throw another charge on you because they had to exert effort when beating you.



:taped sh: That sucks! 



> There were two instances that I know of where candidates were turned down after they scored too high on the police entrance exam (one in Mass., one in NY).



Yeah, the source*s* are dozens and dozens of AP wire reports on that specific topic, my brother the county sherif, and numerous law enforcement web sites. It's become real bad since about the time we invaded Iraq. It does indeed sound ridiculous if you're not informed however so I can understand the retort. It's really not debatable tho.


----------



## prodigy2k7

The US sucks and we all know it


----------



## table1349

usayit said:


> People do care.... The problem is the system doesn't work in their favor.  Unless you have the time, resources, and money it is not easy (like news and media agencies).  We can discuss all we want just as long as those that were confronted by law enforcement under such circumstances are not blamed for "not standing up for their rights" (like in another thread).
> 
> btw.... what we are discussing here has nothing to do with Fascism.  It is a term that is tough enough to define much less throw around.  Perhaps you meant something along the lines of a "military state" or "police state".
> 
> 
> 
> *Interesting tactic Gryph... *
> The frequency of these types of threads must be a bit disconcerting...  unfortunately...
> 
> 
> respectfully distrust...



It wasn't a tactic, it was a fact.  When you do a job like this any good officer comes to an early realization that every case gets the same amount of attention when it comes to an investigation, be it a homicide or a fender bender.  Obviously the homicide has more things to give your attention too and that may mean that it takes longer than the fender bender, they by nature the homicide will be more time consuming and detailed, but you give your full attention to all of the things that need investigating either way.  One of the things that you also learn is that the first interview is almost always the best interview.  You want untainted witnesses, victims, etc.  Again, it doesn't matter if it is a homicide or a fender bender.  

The lawyer here was out there trying to get their story as to what happened to assess the potential for a law suite.  He was in the middle of the street, in the middle of the scene disturbing the debris pattern just to make a buck. In photographic terms he was a paparazzi.  He was getting, or at least trying to get from the victims a story of what occurred.  That makes him a witness at that point.  He should have known that.  I say he should have, as he has since been disbarred.  He still owns the law firm but he can not practice law.  And they are still ambulance chasers.  

One of the things I probably should have explained was the elderly victims here had been traveling down a busy 4 lane street when the local electric utility company's truck turned into their property.  It was towing a 4 wheel trailer designed to carry long wooden power poles.  It was.  The trailer came loose during the turn and the trailer with an extended power pole continued down the street, crossed the center line and went through the windshield of the victims vehicle.  It by the grace of some higher power it missed both the husband and wife and the end of the pole exited the back of the vehicle.  Neither of them had much more than a scratch from some flying glass.  But imagine a 50 foot long wooden pole traveling about 25-30 mph on a trailer coming straight at you when you are traveling at 40 mph towards the pole and you having a head on collision with it.  Needless to say they were a bit shaken and were extremely lucky that one or both of them were not killed.  They as victims deserved the full attention to detail to this investigation that any one else would as the victim of any incident.  The driver was sited for several things including the hauling of an unsecured load.


----------



## usayit

Gryphon,

"Interesting Tactic"... as in an interesting way to get the lawyer/ambulance chaser out of your scene with little resistance or commotion... in a way a bit creative.  The term "tactic" wasn't used to show false pretense on your part.    Just a bit of information I never heard prior.  I meant no offense nor did I fish for more details....


----------



## table1349

usayit said:


> Gryphon,
> 
> "Interesting Tactic"... as in an interesting way to get the lawyer/ambulance chaser out of your scene with little resistance or commotion... in a way a bit creative.  The term "tactic" wasn't used to show false pretense on your part.    Just a bit of information I never heard prior.  I meant no offense nor did I fish for more details....




None taken.    I have found that a lot of people just don't understand  the real facts about law enforcement, court etc.  With the rise of all the popular cop/court shows the average person gets a slanted view of what is and is not real.  

There are actual names for some of the things that have crept into the average persons beliefs.  One of the newest one is the *CSI Effect*.  The lab folks don't work in dark all glass areas with billions of dollars of equipment like they show and make up.  They can't pull fingerprints from the air or do a lot of the thing that shows like that depict.  Frankly real cop work is 5% exciting and 95% boring to the average person.  COP'S may ride with our officers for a week to get 10 minutes of useable material that is exciting.  

But you go to a burglary scene these days and the victims believe that you can do anything and that their burglar will be caught in a matter of hours or days because if we sweep the floor and examine the dirt it will show us exactly where the person lives.  Oh if it were only that easy, then we would only need half the cops and 5 times the lab people.


----------



## Bifurcator

Hehehe too true!  Shows like 24 and CSI are a real disservice to the people on both ends.  It (and some would add "is intended to") drive a wedge of fear, disrespect, and as you pointed out, unrealistic expectation between the public and the public servants. But those labs can do allot with the little they have - I'm occasionally amazed.


----------



## sparrow

One of the things I never hear discussed regarding a photographers rights to take a picture is the victim's right _not_to have their picture taken. Anybody consider this? I hate having my pic taken, and would be furious if somebody took it without considering my feelings while I was in an accident and couldnt respond to them. While a certain amount of journalistic license must prevail, the other side of the coin has to be considered as well. 
Just want to throw in another point of view, would love to hear opinions.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## medic001918

sparrow said:


> One of the things I never hear discussed regarding a photographers rights to take a picture is the victim's right _not_to have their picture taken. Anybody consider this? I hate having my pic taken, and would be furious if somebody took it without considering my feelings while I was in an accident and couldnt respond to them. While a certain amount of journalistic license must prevail, the other side of the coin has to be considered as well.
> Just want to throw in another point of view, would love to hear opinions.
> 
> Cheers, Chris.



You're right about the patient's rights.  And we can go a step further and bring in the HIPPA laws that govern a patient's privacy.  Can you take pictures of the accident?  Yes.  Can you take pictures of the accident where someone can identify the patient's involved?  Absolutely not.  As a paramedic I can only take photos of the scene, nothing involving the patient and only for use to show the hospital what the accident looked like.  The same applies with the news...they're not supposed to show a patient's face when filming.  There's a whole set of laws that apply to these cases.  So the cop was not entirely wrong.  And if I see bystanders taking photos while I'm on the scene of a call, I have no issue asking them to leave or having them removed from the scene by the police department.  I have an obligation to advocate for my patient and their privacy.

And to demonstrate the extent that the HIPPA laws apply, once I write a paper on the call for the hospital and submit it I have to get the patient's permission to ever see that document again even though I'm the one who wrote it.  HIPPA is a very extensive law with strict penalties, criminal and civil.

Shane


----------



## STICKMAN

IF in NJ contact the NJPA http://www.njpa.org/njpa/ they can explain to you you rights as either media source or as a regular person.... You do have the right to take photographes of the accident.

Faces etc do not matter, HOWEVER USE YOUR BEST JUDGEMENT WITH WHAT YOU DO WITH SUCH OR YOU COULD LAND YOURSELF WITH PROBLEMS. If you are behind the crime/fire line you are free to do as you please. And if someone so much as touches you it can be considered simple assault.

As for Hippa laws they would not apply so long as the person is not providing pd/fd/ems service or is a provider/employee that provides services for the person involved, ins co's docs and such. They apply to the above post due to him/her being a medic and having the pts information.

A person may take any picture they want as long as they are not in a posted secure area or trespassing. Thats whats so great about the good old USA

IF UNSURE CHECK WITH YOUR STATE REP. OR STATE POLICE FOR YOUR AREA OR CONTACT A LEGAL LAWYER FOR YOUR STATE.


----------



## reg

sparrow said:


> I hate having my pic taken,



I love this. You're in a car accident, all mangled up and half-dead but too busy using your last breaths to ask someone not to take a picture instead of calling 911.



medic001918 said:


> And if I see bystanders taking photos while I'm on the scene of a call, I have no issue asking them to leave or having them removed from the scene by the police department.



Would I be removed from "the scene" outside the blocked area (i.e. police tape) and am not in anybody's way AT ALL? Could you show me where that's a law? Of course, it's a moot point because _I_ have no issue snapping photos right up until police show up and would be just dandy to leave by then, but only because I've got my keepers.


----------



## prodigy2k7

medic001918 said:


> You're right about the patient's rights.  And we can go a step further and bring in the HIPPA laws that govern a patient's privacy.  Can you take pictures of the accident?  Yes.  Can you take pictures of the accident where someone can identify the patient's involved?  Absolutely not.  As a paramedic I can only take photos of the scene, nothing involving the patient and only for use to show the hospital what the accident looked like.  The same applies with the news...they're not supposed to show a patient's face when filming.  There's a whole set of laws that apply to these cases.  So the cop was not entirely wrong.  And if I see bystanders taking photos while I'm on the scene of a call, I have no issue asking them to leave or having them removed from the scene by the police department.  I have an obligation to advocate for my patient and their privacy.
> 
> And to demonstrate the extent that the HIPPA laws apply, once I write a paper on the call for the hospital and submit it I have to get the patient's permission to ever see that document again even though I'm the one who wrote it.  HIPPA is a very extensive law with strict penalties, criminal and civil.
> 
> Shane



Is there a law against taking photographs of peoples faces in an accident, or just publisizing the photos?


----------



## prodigy2k7

reg said:


> I love this. You're in a car accident, all mangled up and half-dead but too busy using your last breaths to ask someone not to take a picture instead of calling 911.
> 
> 
> 
> Would I be removed from "the scene" outside the blocked area (i.e. police tape) and am not in anybody's way AT ALL? Could you show me where that's a law?



I agree, if I can visibly see the persons face, why not take a picture? as long as its not on the news or the news paper. I wonder what the law is with that....


----------



## medic001918

reg said:


> Would I be removed from "the scene" outside the blocked area (i.e. police tape) and am not in anybody's way AT ALL? Could you show me where that's a law? Of course, it's a moot point because _I_ have no issue snapping photos right up until police show up and would be just dandy to leave by then, but only because I've got my keepers.



It's not about being in the way.  It's about patient privacy.  There's a distinct difference between the two.  And if you want all the information on the HIPPA laws, feel free to google it.  There's tons of information on the Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act of 1997 out there.  Probably more information than anyone would care to digest.



prodigy2k7 said:


> Is there a law against taking photographs of peoples faces in an accident, or just publisizing the photos?



I've always been informed that it applies to both.  Taking and publication.  The patient has not consented to having their photograph taken.  Like I said before, it's not so much about the photographs as much as it is about privacy for those involved.  They're conflicting issues.

Shane


----------



## reg

medic001918 said:


> And if you want all the information on the HIPPA laws, feel free to google it.  There's tons of information on the *Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act of 1997* out there.



It's called the Health Insurance Portability and *Accountability *Act of 1997, for one, and it still has nothing to do with what happens in public, in front of people in open air. There may be some gray area with ambulance photos, photos of treatment etc. but not of the actual crash or people in it.

Although I'm not a doctor, I know more about it than most regular people, starting with the name.


----------



## Azuth

There are very few laws that prevent you from photographing anything, particularly on public property. You can be asked to leave private property for just about any reason.

If the accident was deemed newsworthy then you probably would not have any issue publishing the pictures for news purposes. You could also more than likely use them for documentary purposes, for example a documentary on car crashes.

This of course could be contested civilly (as can pretty much anything), and a person could claim "right to privacy", but I don't think this has been successfully argued in the case of being in a car.


----------



## Mike A.

just read your forum and i am fighting a fine for disorderly conduct for taking a picture on public property. this happened a week and half ago. so i'm going to fight this. found that this is legal as long as you are on public property and not taking pictures of anything like of government stuff or into someone's windows etc.......  so far haven't found anything more on this case. this happened in sheboygan, wi. 

mike a.


----------



## reg

Hi Mike - you'll get more responses directly to you by starting a new thread but either way - what happened, in as painful and boring of detail you can manage? What were you taking a picture of etc etc.


----------



## Mike A.

I was taking pictures of just walking down the street 5 houses from home. picture shows of cars the postal carrier and everything else down the street. the postal worker was on public property.


----------



## Mike A.

reg,
sorry it took so long for this......i had a stroke so it takes too long to do this. so the wife helps a lot....all? but i,m feeling much better now!


----------



## reg

It's ok - well if the fine is based on just you taking pictures (you don't LOOK like you'd be beating up on any cops) then you should be able to beat it. If the postal carrier was on public property, then nothing was wrong with you taking their picture.


----------



## Mike A.

reg,

will keep you and all informed on what will happen in my case. i,m not giving up just yet!!!


----------



## Bifurcator

It may depend on the judge and stuff too. Some courts are how shall we say it, doing a little more than upholding and ruling on, the law.


----------



## sparrow

I find it sad that so many photographers here are up in arms about their rights to photograph whatever they please, and yet will not grant people the right _not_ to be photographed. Is it so important that we get the image we want, regardless of the hurt it does to others? 

Reg, you seem to jump on the slightest hint of copyright infringement, but you don't seem to respect the most precious copyright we have, that of our own image, to be used as _we_ see fit, not up to the whims of others.

Respecting other's rights is as important as maintaining your own, and sometimes, in my opinion, more so. Especially when that person is not in a position to speak for themselves. 

Regards, Chris.


----------



## prodigy2k7

I see it as if your in a public place. You are visible from other peoples view. Why not take a picture, its the same thing anyone else can seem. You just now have a record of it instead of forgetting it...


----------



## usayit

sparrow said:


> I find it sad that so many photographers here are up in arms about their rights to photograph whatever they please, and yet will not grant people the right _not_ to be photographed. Is it so important that we get the image we want, regardless of the hurt it does to others?
> 
> Reg, you seem to jump on the slightest hint of copyright infringement, but you don't seem to respect the most precious copyright we have, that of our own image, to be used as _we_ see fit, not up to the whims of others.
> 
> Respecting other's rights is as important as maintaining your own, and sometimes, in my opinion, more so. Especially when that person is not in a position to speak for themselves.
> 
> Regards, Chris.




In a way, I understand where you are coming from (I'm a little camera shy too) but your are mixing up very two distinct things;  Rights (legal) and Consideration (ethics, moral, and personal feelings). Two entirely different things.  In a society of laws/legalities, written law is all that counts.  Consideration varies so much from person to person and people to people there is no way to enforce one idea of right/wrong without violating others idea of right or wrong.  In fact, this is exactly what happens in societies heavily geared towards a theological or one person's/group's ideals.

One might consider being stared at or seen as a violation of their "right".  If that was written to law, 1/2 of the population would be in violation when some hot woman in a skimpy skirt walked the street.  The woman is enforcing their "right" to dress provocatively and enforcing their "right" not have people stare. This is at the expense of the right of those around them to take notice at whatever they see in public (mental picture).  The other side of the coin is a society that deems provocative dress as a violation of their rights.... the solution is to cover head to toe with force.  That same society took it even further and made it illegal to even paint a picture with a person as a subject.  That same society burned hundreds of years of film documented history because they too captured human life.  Now I'm not saying that is right/wrong (Its not my place to judge) but it isn't a society I would like to live under.

btw..The legal term "copyright" in your post is used incorrectly.

You have every right not to be photographed... the answer is simply... stay out of a public place.


----------



## patrickt

"You have every right not to be photographed... the answer is simply... stay out of a public place."

What a wonderfully self-centered view.


----------



## Village Idiot

patrickt said:


> "You have every right not to be photographed... the answer is simply... stay out of a public place."
> 
> What a wonderfully self-centered view.


 
What a wonderfully legal view.


----------



## Bifurcator

You have every right not to be hit by a car. Simple, stay out of the road.

You have every right not to be exposed to half naked people. Simply say off the beach and out of pool areas.

You have every right not to have to smell tobacco smoke. Simply stay out of bars and dance clubs!

You have every right to not have to smell burning kangaroo meat. Simply stay out of McDonalds.

You have every right not to be exposed to these opinions. Simply don't read this thread.


----------



## Village Idiot

Your McDonalds burn the Kanagroo?


----------



## usayit

Funny.. I always thought McD's burned varmin....


----------



## Easy_Target

usayit said:


> You have every right not to be photographed... the answer is simply... stay out of a public place.


BINGO.

Even if they were to ban photography (God forbid) in public places, you'd STILL be captured on film/digitally by going out. How you ask? Notice that security camera mounted to the ceiling? Those cameras perched on banks? Those still capture your image. 



patrickt said:


> "You have every right not to be photographed... the answer is simply... stay out of a public place."
> 
> What a wonderfully self-centered view.



It's not self centered if he's right. It's like someone who is offended by a store that sells comic books and will go into a fit of rage murdering anyone in sight if they see a comic book. What will the law say? Don't go anywhere where there are comic books.



Bifurcator said:


> You have every right not to be hit by a car. Simple, stay out of the road.
> 
> You have every right not to be exposed to half naked people. Simply say off the beach and out of pool areas.
> 
> You have every right not to have to smell tobacco smoke. Simply stay out of bars and dance clubs!
> 
> You have every right to not have to smell burning kangaroo meat. Simply stay out of McDonalds.
> 
> You have every right not to be exposed to these opinions. Simply don't read this thread.


Truth.

Kangaroo? I want to try a roo burger


----------



## patrickt

"It's not self centered if he's right. It's like someone who is offended by a store that sells comic books and will go into a fit of rage murdering anyone in sight if they see a comic book. What will the law say? Don't go anywhere where there are comic books."

Nonsense. So, a beautiful woman with a baby with a cleft palette is going down the street and you think the contrast between beautiful and deformed is fascinating so you start clicking away. She gets upset and you sneer and say, "Hey, you don't want your picture taken, stay home." Hey, it's legal. I watched a man get within two feet of an old blind woman's face and start clicking away. She heard and asked what was happening but, hey, there's no law that says he has to answer her, is there. He took a few more pictures and strutted off. Legal. Probably and after all you can tell her to stay home.


One can be a totally self-centered person without breaking the law. The comic book scenario is not a valid comparison. I certainly have no problem taking photos. I love taking photos. But, there are times and places when I ask permission. I don't think my desire to take a photo trumps everything.


----------



## usayit

Ok Patrickt, then head over to your lawyer and change the law.... heheh lol

Again... history and even current events show how a society that you wish for degrades human rights all together..


Next we'll write into law how people should dress.
Next we'll write into law how people should act
Next we'll write into law how people should live

all in the name of keeping people from "irritating" other people.   Or perhaps spin it around.... all in the name of overly sensitive immaturity.  

what's next???


The space alien who doesn't want to be photographed so they don't get discovered????   

btw.. I don't like being called self-centered for quoting and educating you on the law.




patrickt said:


> Nonsense. So, a beautiful woman with a baby with a cleft palette is going down the street and you think the contrast between beautiful and deformed is fascinating so you start clicking away.



what I say is such big Nonsense that its actually protected by law... yeh.   Easy solution... I find babies with cleft palettes disturbing.  Lets make them illegal and kick them out.  (I'm JOKING...)


----------



## Hawaii Five-O

sparrow said:


> I find it sad that so many photographers here are up in arms about their rights to photograph whatever they please, and yet will not grant people the right _not_ to be photographed. Is it so important that we get the image we want, regardless of the hurt it does to others?
> 
> Reg, you seem to jump on the slightest hint of copyright infringement, but you don't seem to respect the most precious copyright we have, that of our own image, to be used as _we_ see fit, not up to the whims of others.
> 
> Respecting other's rights is as important as maintaining your own, and sometimes, in my opinion, more so. Especially when that person is not in a position to speak for themselves.
> 
> Regards, Chris.



Yeah I was kinda wondering why the OP wanted to take a picture of an accident so bad.:scratch:


----------



## Joves

C677T said:


> Yeah I was kinda wondering why the OP wanted to take a picture of an accident so bad.:scratch:


Because they can and it is somehing interesting as you travel along the way.


----------



## patrickt

Usayit and EasyTarget: You don't get it. I don't like more laws and would hate to see more laws and restrictions on where you can take photos and how you can take photos.

And, I won't be responsible for more laws. It isn't people like me that got the sign in the museum down the street that says, "No tripods." No, it was people like you who would set up a tripod in a doorway and if anyone objected they would shout, "I have a right to set my tripod here. If you don't like it, don't come into the museum." Fine. Now, you don't get to use a tripod in the museum. I really wouldn't care if they said that inconsiderate self-centered people couldn't have a tripod but they say no one can.

The church down the street has a sign they put up that says, "A private ceremony is in progress, please, be respectful and don't take pictures." Guess what? It doesn't work. Oh, I try to be respectful on don't interfere but there are those who will interupt the ceremony with their picture taking. Hey, they have a right to take their pictures and if you don't like it, don't get married. So, I suspect soon, the church will have a sign that says no cameras without a permit.

It's the self-centered people who are going to do as they please and if you don't like it, get off the street, who will bring in laws and restrictions. There are concepts such as courtesy, consideration, and accommodation which really go a long way towards making life more tolerable.


----------



## manaheim

RMThompson said:


> I've said it so many times, I've added it my signature:
> 
> Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. *Benjamin Franklin*, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759_


 
One of my very favorite quotes.


----------



## usayit

patrickt said:


> And, I won't be responsible for more laws. It isn't people like me that got the sign in the museum down the street that says, "No tripods." No, it was people like you who would set up a tripod in a doorway and if anyone objected they would shout, "I have a right to set my tripod here. If you don't like it, don't come into the museum."



No its you that don't get it.  You can discuss all the situations all you want and twist a story in your favor.  For each one, there are other "stories" to the contrary.  One of the rules of thumb of a debate is that you use facts.  In this case, law.  

Museum is generally private property thus they have every right to enforce the "No tripods" policy for which I have no problem.

move on.. you have absolutely no stance.



> The church down the street has a sign they put up that says,



Again... church is private property... and one could place the ceremony as a place or event of reasonable expectation of privacy.   So again your understanding of the law and what it states is severely lacking.  



> It's the self-centered people who are going to do as they please and if you don't like it, get off the street, who will bring in laws and restrictions. There are concepts such as courtesy, consideration, and accommodation which really go a long way towards making life more tolerable.



Again.. you have no standing in this discussion nor any debate on the topic.  Stop for a second and actually read something useful on the topic and pay attention to the other posts.  You rarely read what I"m posting and simply mouth off.

The only way to learn is to close mouth and open ears.....  your entire post is completely off base.  You don't even understand the difference between private and public property.  You should start there.


----------



## Big Bully

Easy_Target said:


> You're legally allowed to, but the cops don't like it. Why? In case you capture anything on film that contradicts the police testimony as to what happened. They claim that you're obstructing an investigation, which is complete and utter crap usually.
> 
> Photographer catches photos of car accident. Troopers throw him into squad car and arrest him after refusing to comply with their orders to delete the images.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's reasons like this that I plan on moving out of the United States.[/*quote]
> 
> You are taking the fault of a few police officers and stereo-typing the whole damn force. You can't blame everyone for a few bad apples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US sucks and we all know it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEN MOVE OUT... Go with the Dixie Chicks and get the hell out if you don't like the country so much!
Click to expand...


----------



## manaheim

^^^ Oh gawd... the thread has officially gone off the deep end.

Can I suggest we all go post on some other thread and walk slowly and quietly away from this one?


----------



## Village Idiot

Big Bully said:


> Easy_Target said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're legally allowed to, but the cops don't like it. Why? In case you capture anything on film that contradicts the police testimony as to what happened. They claim that you're obstructing an investigation, which is complete and utter crap usually.
> 
> Photographer catches photos of car accident. Troopers throw him into squad car and arrest him after refusing to comply with their orders to delete the images.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's reasons like this that I plan on moving out of the United States.[/*quote]
> 
> You are taking the fault of a few police officers and stereo-typing the whole damn force. You can't blame everyone for a few bad apples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEN MOVE OUT... Go with the Dixie Chicks and get the hell out if you don't like the country so much!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find me a job and pay for me to move to Japan?
> 
> I pretty sure that Usayit wouldn't go harrassing a blind woman just because he's legally allowed to take photos of her. That's where that whole consideration thing comes in. He's just pointing out that it's legal to photograph anyone in a public place.
> 
> You should thank god you don't live in Lodon if you have a real issue with being photographed. You'd be on CC TV all the time?
Click to expand...


----------



## usayit

Village Idiot said:


> I pretty sure that Usayit wouldn't go harrassing a blind woman just because he's legally allowed to take photos of her. That's where that whole consideration thing comes in. He's just pointing out that it's legal to photograph anyone in a public place.



Exactly.. of course I would use consideration and be aware of people's feelings.  I'm a pleasant fellow that deals with rude people all the time.  Sometimes I wish I could sue people for rudeness (I'd be wealthy) but it is their right (to be rude) and I have to respect that.  

What I do have a problem is when someone (Patrickt) who is obviously ignorant of the law calls me self-centered when corrected.  



I say pass a law that specifically forbids any action that pisses me off... because in my mind its rude.


----------



## Bifurcator

THEN MOVE OUT... Go with the Dixie Chicks and get the hell out if you don't like the country so much!

The Dixie Chicks = Real Americans! But they don't want to move out. They recognize the nazi element that is in control of the US and they want to change things. I take it you like (worship?) that sorta thing and want it to continue?



Village Idiot said:


> Can you find me a job and pay for me to move to Japan?



Yeah, here the "cops" don't say anything if you show up and start photographing an accident. They do carry around large blue tarps though and cover scenes if there's a privacy issue (any exposed flesh). It's a nice way to handle things! 




> You should thank god you don't live in Lodon if you have a real issue with being photographed. You'd be on CC TV all the time?



I hear most of the major cities in the USA are no different. In Japan we have security cameras in stores but nothing on the street. We have them on the freeways here for speeding tickets as the "cops" here don't issue speeding tickets (usually) on the freeway. But I think they don't use them. There was a whole year when I had to drive about 80 miles to work and back (Kanazawa Institute Of Science And Technology) and I flew at about 110 MPH right past them almost every day and never got a ticket. 

-- 
As for the McD Roo meat that was an actual US FDA (I think) vrs. McD's court case in the early 70's but it's been sealed and now only floats around as a rumor or is called an urban legend. I think it's interesting how history can be rewritten given a little effort from a few liars and some time.   There were three companies busted for it. I think if I remember right Jack In The Box was closed down and sent packing as a result of it. I think they didn't stop using it after they got busted so their lic. was revoked or something.


----------



## Bifurcator

Maybe Nikon will develop this idea if this photographer abuse continues?

http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/a0f3/


----------



## Big Bully

Bifurcator said:


> THEN MOVE OUT... Go with the Dixie Chicks and get the hell out if you don't like the country so much!
> 
> The Dixie Chicks = Real Americans! But they don't want to move out. They recognize the nazi element that is in control of the US and they want to change things. I take it you like (worship?) that sorta thing and want it to continue?


 

Right... real American's who just want to make a scene and cause a fight. 
I don't worship the system but, I do like order and I like things to remain in control. If someone is doing something stupid or dangerous they should pay the consequences(sp?). I don't think that people should get away with things just because they are having a "rebel stage". My neice got busted a few weeks ago for stealing $500 worth of stuff from a store. She was "just having fun, and trying to get away with it." But ya know what, she was being stupid, she was doing something illegal, she freakin deserved to get caught and get into trouble. Someone said before that stealing is a victimless crime. Well what if you are the one who was being robbed, how would you feel? OMG you would feel victimized.. Because you are the victim. 
The reason we Americans have laws is so that people don't get hurt. We have people in jail and prison, because they were being stupid, or hurting other people, whether it be physical violence, murder, rape, or robbery, they deserve to be there. But just like those cop videos, we have some that really don't deserve to be in jail or even in a position of power. But the world or the country is not perfect and you can't judge a book by its cover or even by a few bad pages. 
Yeah we aren't as freakin lenient as Japan, but we aren't Japan. We have a system that works, and that keeps people safe. So if you want to live in a country that lets people be stupid, and dangerous, then by all means stay where you are. But I would like some order in my life, and know that the judicial system, which is also not perfect, will create some sort of resemblance of balance.


----------



## Bifurcator

Big Bully said:


> Right... real American's who just want to make a scene and cause a fight.



Sometimes you have to. When ACTUAL Nazis start taking over the place and setting up a tyrannical system I guess that's the best time to do it!


----------



## Big Bully

Bifurcator said:


> Sometimes you have to. When ACTUAL Nazis start taking over the place and setting up a tyrannical system I guess that's the best time to do it!


 

Why on earth are you comparing us to the Nazi's?! We fought the Nazi's and are nowhere near the Nazi's. The only thing we are doing in our country is protecting ourselves and others against terrorists, because of that we have a heightened sense of security so freaking what. We don't want 9-11 to happen again.. Heaven forbid a nation protects itself.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O

I agree people should be able to take pictures in public to an extent, but we just need to be sure and be considerate like usayit said. Personally I don't see what the purpose is of taking a photo of an accident is, or how it could be interesting, because accidents generally suck. Taking a photo is equal to gawking at someone else 's accident which I don't get.


----------



## Bifurcator

Big Bully said:


> Why on earth are you comparing us to the Nazi's?!



Not a comparison but an actuality. Bush IS a Nazi. The CFR that runs the US is just rife with actual Nazis. These are documented historical facts. A little investigative reading at the Library Of Congress will enlighten. But we're so far off topic now. If you want to continue this let's do it in PM.


----------



## Big Bully

Bifurcator said:


> Not a comparison but an actuality. Bush IS a Nazi. The CFR that runs the US is just rife with actual Nazis. These are documented historical facts. A little investigative reading at the Library Of Congress will enlighten. But we're so far off topic now. If you want to continue this let's do it in PM.


 

You are getting way into politics with that remark. Just because you don't like what someone does, does not make them a Nazi. Just think of it this way, he could be worse, he could be a lot worse. 
But like I said, this is getting way too political and the forum does not allow politics to be discussed.


----------



## Big Bully

C677T said:


> I agree people should be able to take pictures in public to an extent, but we just need to be sure and be considerate like usayit said. Personally I don't see what the purpose is of taking a photo of an accident is, or how it could be interesting, because accidents generally suck. *Taking a photo is equal to gawking at someone else 's accident which I don't get*.


 

They are people who relish over death and destruction I guess. I agree with you though, there should be boundries, lenient boundries, because there are some cases where photographers have crossed the line.


----------



## usayit

Bifucator,

Please stop (shut your trap) as you have already demonstrated how little mature understanding you have about U.S. and politics.  I am VERY critical of my country because I know the U.S. can do better...  I am true believer that most of my countrymen (and women) are at heart true Americans that just want things to improve.  My criticisms and many that are shared are because we want things to improve... call it being constructive.  

This is a far cry from the U.S. bashing that has come directly from you.  There is so much "wrong" about your postings that I can't even begin to quote and comment on them.  Your use of "Nazi" is by definition incorrect as well as inflammatory/derogatory.  Your references to "facts" about the U.S. is an attempt to make yourself to be well knowledgeable but so far off and so generalized.  You have even admitted in another thread that your information comes mostly from third party sources (internet radio and video streams).  



			
				Bifurcator said:
			
		

> Really? Yeah, I guess every area is different. This is what I'm seeing on publicly posted videos and what's being said on internet radio/podcasts. I've never put it to the test and since I don't live there...  It's only 2nd hand info and pretty non-specific.



http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131019


A person's learned information is only as good as the source.  You have chosen your sources VERY poorly.  My advice to you is to shut mouth, open your ears, and mind.  Learn what is happening.  Absorb what other people of different walks of life have to say.  You can't learn from people when you are too busy talking nonsense.

Remember, there is no perfect country in the World and your country, Japan, is so very far from perfect... and it has been proven by history.  


Moderators... please close this thread... its just become a soap box for a person who wishes to bash on a country he knows so little about.


----------



## Big Bully

Thank you usayit, I couldn't have said it better!:hail:


----------



## Joves

Big Bully said:


> Why on earth are you comparing us to the Nazi's?! We fought the Nazi's and are nowhere near the Nazi's. The only thing we are doing in our country is protecting ourselves and others against terrorists, because of that we have a heightened sense of security so freaking what. We don't want 9-11 to happen again.. Heaven forbid a nation protects itself.


 Actually Im sick and tired of hearing the 9/11 reasoning. This is the reason we a heading towards a police state. You want to give up rights for security fine but, I dont believe in giving up any rights to be secure, mainly because it is a dillusion. We had 9/11 so what, look at many other places in the world. They have been being attacked by terrorists for decades prior to 9/11. We are just late comers to the party. And as usual we over react. The only ones who do not have constitutional rights in this country are those who are not yet naturalized citizens or, born here. And unfortunately we dont seem to be watching them a whole lot.


----------

