# Police Harassing Timelapse Photographer (Video title)



## Ballistics (Feb 29, 2012)




----------



## zcar21 (Feb 29, 2012)

They think they're above the law. Airport officers are the worst though.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 29, 2012)

Which begs the question:  Was in fact within his rights to record them and refuse to show ID?


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

Sucka


----------



## zcar21 (Feb 29, 2012)

They can record you, why shouldn't one be able to record them to make sure they're not abusing of power?

In one of the other videos, a cop from new mexico said it's ok to video tape him.


----------



## jonathon94 (Feb 29, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Which begs the question:  Was in fact within his rights to record them and refuse to show ID?



You may legally record the police in public (some cops either don't know that or lie and intimidate)
As for the second question, it is more of a per-state law thing. When do I have to show the police my ID


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

This is a 'Time Lapse' of what and by whom....doesn't any of that matter?


----------



## Overread (Feb 29, 2012)

To be fair whilst I understand that people don't like being monitored chances are records of "random guy caught taking photos late at night" are not going to do much and most times probably won't even be filed cause of the paperwork involved. Sometimes giving a little just helps ease the situation somewhat.

*prepares to be bombarded by people defending their rights*


----------



## DorkSterr (Feb 29, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Which begs the question:  Was in fact within his rights to record them and refuse to show ID?



THIS THIS THIS!!! I really wanna know.


----------



## jonathon94 (Feb 29, 2012)

DorkSterr said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Which begs the question:  Was in fact within his rights to record them and refuse to show ID?
> ...


 
look at my reply

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

Overread said:


> To be fair whilst I understand that people don't like being monitored chances are records of "random guy caught taking photos late at night" are not going to do much and most times probably won't even be filed cause of the paperwork involved. Sometimes giving a little just helps ease the situation somewhat.
> 
> *prepares to be bombarded by people defending their rights*



What are you talking about Overread??? Is this a UK think or a US thing??? I'm just *guessing* it makes a diference....


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Which begs the question:  Was in fact within his rights to record them and refuse to show ID?



Who really cares...you may be partaking in being set up for drama as so often occurs here on TPF...Hook, line and sinker....


----------



## Overread (Feb 29, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> What are you talking about Overread??? Is this a UK think or a US thing??? I'm just *guessing* it makes a diference....



Wait which part do you mean by "UK US Thing" (I get that statement just not which bit of my comment it refers to).


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

Overread said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > What are you talking about Overread??? Is this a UK think or a US thing??? I'm just *guessing* it makes a diference....
> ...



The 'rights' part about the 'paperwork'...do they differ between the UK and the US??? You seem to suggest they do...and do you think this video is approriate to the UK or the US as it pertains to harssement and ID ???

LAWS???


----------



## Overread (Feb 29, 2012)

Rights and such do differ between the UK and the USA (mostly on account we don't have a specific list of "rights" so much as a long list of things we are not allowed to do  - which is an exceptionally broad and simplistic explanation of a complex setup. (and no I can't give the complex explination). 

As for paperwork I thought that was a universal factor for the police. Whilst each event might go recorded there is a high chance that if nothing further comes from the event itself and that if nothing is considered strange/risky by the officer then not much if anything will be recorded. If it is all it will list is likely the name of the person and that they had their camera out - not much more or less than that (as there really isn't much more or less than that).

As for ID we do have the right to withhold details of our ID from the police and are not required to even carry it with us.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

I don't really care. This post is a set-up.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 29, 2012)

States with Stop and Identify laws.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> States with Stop and Identify laws.[/QUOTE
> 
> So Sparky..so???
> 
> Who created the Video and what was the point?


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

Maybe the whole new malitia gang and friends needs to chat this one up....


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 29, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> So Sparky..so???
> 
> Who created the Video and what was the point?



Who cares who created the video, and why?  I'm not addressing that issue.

The point is, laws vary from state to state.  There is no one-size-fits-all response to "Am I required to produce an ID?"

In fact, I don't think in the USA you're required to even CARRY an ID.  Yes, you generally must carry your DL if you're driving, but not if you're just walking down the street.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

Is this post/thread about driving rules or about photos?..I know this is not about state police.  Who created the video about police harassment...and what is the time lapse photogrpahy really about...do you know?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 29, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Is this post/thread about driving rules or about photos?......



Makes no difference.  If a person is acting fully within the laws and his rights, being arrested / detained / hassled by LEO by doing so is just wrong.




GeorgieGirl said:


> ..I know this is not about state police.....



Yet there are uninformed LEO who merrily arrest, detail and harass law-abiding citizens.  




GeorgieGirl said:


> .......and what is the time lapse photogrpahy really about...do you know?



What difference does it make _what_ the photography is about?  If he takes one photo, it's legal.  If he takes 17,000 photos to compile into a video, it's legal.  I do not know, and neither do you.  But the fact is, whether we know why he's there is NOT RELEVANT.  What IS relevant is he was fully within his rights to make a time-lapse video.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Is this post/thread about driving rules or about photos?......
> ...



Back to the beginning...who cares...what a pile of crap...I could care less about the politics....if this site is now about that...what ever, its not an improvement IMHO.

And by the way... there is no video to interpret or convert as TimeLapse on this thread...just some audio dialog that y'all seem to like as support of  I don't know what y'all  are overly excited about...


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 29, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Back to the begining...who cares...what a pile of crap...I could care less about the politics....if this site is now about that...what ever, its not an improvement IMHO.



If you don't care, then why are you even responding in this thread?





GeorgieGirl said:


> And by the way... there is no video to interpret or convert as TimeLapse on this thread...just some audio dialog that y'all seem to like as support of  I don't now what.



Once again...... _*what difference does it make*_ whether he's taking ONE frame for SIXTEEN BILLION frames, or 1 SECOND of video or SIX HOURS of video*?*  You keep throwing up these non-relevant issues.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Feb 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the begining...who cares...what a pile of crap...I could care less about the politics....if this site is now about that...what ever, its not an improvement IMHO.
> ...





WHO IS TAKING WHAT PHOTOS AND VIDEO??? YOU ARE SUPPORTING WHO AND WHAT??? 

Don't focus on me...support your side of your cause if you even can!

I'll leave this dilemma to you...nite Sparky!

Who is takng the one frame or the sixteen billion....who took the original video this thread...who can support this as legit? You???

That is the question I have...no one seems to be willing or capable of an answer so far....


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 29, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> WHO IS TAKING WHAT PHOTOS AND VIDEO???



The guy with the camera is taking the photos/video.  I think it's incredibly obvious.




GeorgieGirl said:


> YOU ARE SUPPORTING WHO AND WHAT???



That isn't even a question.



GeorgieGirl said:


> Don't focus on me...support your side of your cause if you even can!



I did........ with a link.  Maybe you missed it. Click on this link>>>>>>  Here it is again.  <<<<< Click on this link.



GeorgieGirl said:


> I'll leave this dilemma to you...nite Sparky!



You are the dilemma, and I can't solve it when you respond like you're PWI.



GeorgieGirl said:


> Who is takng the one frame or the sixteen billion....who took the original video this thread...who can support this as legit? You???
> 
> That is the question I have...no one seems to be willing or capable of an answer so far....



For the third time:  IT MAKE >>>>>>>NO DIFFERENCE<<<<<<<  Repeat: >>>>>>>NO DIFFERENCE<<<<<<<  _why_ he is there. He could be taking photos. He could be making a video.  He might be compiling frames for a time-lapse.  He might have been jogging and was taking a break.  Maybe he lost his dog and was out looking for it.  He could be just taking in the view.  He could be writing poetry, or composing a song.  Maybe he was checking his text messages.  Perhaps he was counting his money to see if he had enough to buy a Pepsi.  The issue is, and I hope you can try to understand this: _He is there legally and fully within his rights_.  _He is not doing anything illegal_.  That's all the relavence needed.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 29, 2012)




----------



## Ballistics (Feb 29, 2012)

GeorgieGirl, what is with the hysteria?


----------



## Bossy (Feb 29, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> GeorgieGirl, what is with the hysteria?


Maybe that's her boyfriend so its a touchy subject


----------



## tirediron (Feb 29, 2012)

*Okay folks, deep breath, and let's relax, or it's going to be separate darkrooms for everyone.*


----------



## redjupiter58 (Mar 2, 2012)

You can talk about your rights as much as you like but what clearly obvious from this video is that he was trying to provoke them and he succeeded only in screwing up and turning them against him and they shut him down. Duh.....


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Mar 2, 2012)

redjupiter58 said:


> You can talk about your rights as much as you like but what clearly obvious from this video is that he was trying to provoke them and he succeeded only in screwing up and turning them against him and they shut him down. Duh.....



I agree - 

I'd hate getting harassed too, but those cops don't know what time lapse is, much less anything about photography other than, the dude is on the roadside late at night doing something with some equipment. Sure they are within their work description to check it and the person out. How is this that hard to understand?
The cop was asking to see ID? How is this so hard for someone to understand?

Now maybe after checking the dude out, they then make him leave for no reason if he is in a safe position not affecting others, then maybe i'd have a problem.


----------



## jonathon94 (Mar 2, 2012)

redjupiter58 said:


> You can talk about your rights as much as you like but what clearly obvious from this video is that he was trying to provoke them and he succeeded only in screwing up and turning them against him and they shut him down. Duh.....


 
I somewhat have to agree. I believe we should hold up our rights the best way that we can but at the same time he does appear to be provoking them.

On the contrary though, he has every right to record both their video and audio on the street. So they were wrong when they told him otherwise

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

jonathon94 said:


> redjupiter58 said:
> 
> 
> > You can talk about your rights as much as you like but what clearly obvious from this video is that he was trying to provoke them and he succeeded only in screwing up and turning them against him and they shut him down. Duh.....
> ...




Where did he provoke them???????  The officer asked for ID, and he said no, which is completely within his rights.  End of story.


Next it will be in home searches without probable cause or warrants.


Many have died and will die for our rights.  I plan to uphold mine as well.


----------



## jonathon94 (Mar 2, 2012)

the whole time he attempted to make it harder for the cops. What was so wrong with giving his Id to ensure he is not a known criminal 

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 2, 2012)

I listened to the first 15 seconds of the  video and it is obvious that he is baiting the cops, he started the whole process.  I understand that he has rights to shoot, he stated that right off the bat with the cops, and for that he ended up making the situation worse.  It's guys like this that create the problems for everyone with a camera.  What was he shooting, was he in a sensitive area, was he standing in a dangerous area. Inspite of those that have said it doesn't matter what he was shooting, it really does, even if he does have the right to shoot it.

You know there are times when being respectful will get you no problems from anyone.  Opening up with, "I know my rights, you can't do this and I don't have to show you ID, and the police have bothered me before"  That's not going to get you anywhere.  They aren't wrong in stopping to ask questions, that is part of their job.  I've delt with police in alot of different situations and acting like a dick gets you nowhere.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 2, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> You know there are times when being respectful will get you no problems from anyone. Opening up with, "I know my rights, you can't do this and I don't have to show you ID, and the police have bothered me before" That's not going to get you anywhere. They aren't wrong in stopping to ask questions, that is part of their job. I've delt with police in alot of different situations and acting like a dick gets you nowhere.


While I agree in principle, my concern here is that if in fact the photographer was within his rights to withhold his ID (and it doesn't make sense to me that he would be since that would really limit the police in their abiltity to do their job), why were the police continuing to to demand it?


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

To lighten up the mood:


----------



## gsgary (Mar 2, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair whilst I understand that people don't like being monitored chances are records of "random guy caught taking photos late at night" are not going to do much and most times probably won't even be filed cause of the paperwork involved. Sometimes giving a little just helps ease the situation somewhat.
> ...




Never give in to the police, my partners works for Derbyshire Constabulary and it drives her mad  **** them


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > You know there are times when being respectful will get you no problems from anyone. Opening up with, "I know my rights, you can't do this and I don't have to show you ID, and the police have bothered me before" That's not going to get you anywhere. They aren't wrong in stopping to ask questions, that is part of their job. I've delt with police in alot of different situations and acting like a dick gets you nowhere.
> ...



If he had nothing to hide, then why continue to provoke, they look, they say no problem, thanks and have a safe night.  Instead he continues to push it looking for his 15 minutes of youtube fame.  The police could quite of easily just said fine, cuffed him and away he goes. Without a background on the guy, the police may have had a complaint, maybe he fit the decription of someone they were looking for.  What's the point of pushing a matter that could have been settled in a matter of minutes. I don't understand the mentality, may be just my being in my mid 50's, maybe it's having worked around security for years as a photographer.  I'm all for my rights and the rights of others, but personally, I'd rather just say sure no problem, and enjoyed the rest of my night.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

jonathon94 said:


> the whole time he attempted to make it harder for the cops. What was so wrong with giving his Id to ensure he is not a known criminal
> 
> -Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-



This is what you don't understand. If people don't uphold their own rights, you're basically being oppressed by the police force. They had absolutely no right to question him, or ask for his ID. He was WITHIN HIS RIGHTS PROVIDED TO HIM CONSTITUTIONALLY AT BIRTH to take photos there. 

When Bush was president and I was still in high school, I didn't stand for the pledge of allegiance (Heck, I may not even stand for it today because I fundamentally disagree with it). Numerous times, in numerous classes I was sent to the principals office by various right wing school teachers who thought I was committing heresy. The thing is, I HAVE the right to not stand up for the pledge of allegiance, and I could have had any of the teachers reprimanded or fired for the way they treated me. I was never disrespectful or disruptive. I just chose to remain seated quietly at my desk while the pledge took place. I never once folded to the administration, or to pressure from "superiors" because I had done nothing wrong.

What you fail to realize is that this guy is in the same boat as I was.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> What you fail to realize is that this guy is in the same boat as I was.


Was he?  Really?  As a student in school of course you were exercising a legal right, BUT, was this individual on the bridge doing the same thing?  I'm not so sure.  In most places the police are granted certain rights to ask questions in the reasonable performance of their duties (NOTE:  I am not saying I agree with this, just stating it as a fact), and to demand explanations of what they deem to be unusual or suspicious behaviour.  I find it odd that a country or state handicap a police force by granting an individual the right to refuse to answer these questions without repurcussion.

Granted, you can always refuse to answer, but the police can usually respond by detaining you.

Again, I ask the question:  Did the photographer have the right to refuse to answer?  Did the police have the right to detain him if he did refuse to answer?


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > What you fail to realize is that this guy is in the same boat as I was.
> ...



The police need to have probable cause to look at the guy's ID. He was pointing a camera at a freeway, not moving it, taking long exposures. There was no probable cause, and no need for him to roll over and show them his ID. This isn't Nazi Germany. 

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> This is what you don't understand. If people don't uphold their own rights, you're basically being oppressed by the police force. They had absolutely no right to question him, or ask for his ID. He was WITHIN HIS RIGHTS PROVIDED TO HIM CONSTITUTIONALLY AT BIRTH to take photos there.
> 
> When Bush was president and I was still in high school, I didn't stand for the pledge of allegiance (Heck, I may not even stand for it today because I fundamentally disagree with it). Numerous times, in numerous classes I was sent to the principals office by various right wing school teachers who thought I was committing heresy. The thing is, I HAVE the right to not stand up for the pledge of allegiance, and I could have had any of the teachers reprimanded or fired for the way they treated me. I was never disrespectful or disruptive. I just chose to remain seated quietly at my desk while the pledge took place. I never once folded to the administration, or to pressure from "superiors" because I had done nothing wrong.
> 
> What you fail to realize is that this guy is in the same boat as I was.



It's interesting that you talk about having rights, but you didn't stand up for the pledge for the very country that gave you those rights.  Almost a double standard.

If the police see something they deem suspicious, like a GWAC late at night, they can ask questions.  I've been asked questions in my small town for just working on my car in my own yard late at night.  No big deal.  Why push the issue?  Save your fight for another day.  On top of a bridge late at night is not the time.  If you feel you've been wronged, arguing with the cops will not get you anywhere.  Take the proper steps and file a complaint, or a lawsuit if you wish.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> jonathon94 said:
> 
> 
> > the whole time he attempted to make it harder for the cops. What was so wrong with giving his Id to ensure he is not a known criminal
> ...



So fundamentally you have no respect for your own county, for your flag, the people of the United States, liberty or justice.  So what part don't you agree with?


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > jonathon94 said:
> ...



This isn't about me in the thread, and I have the right to my own political opinions. 

Here are the things that I do not agree with: 

1. "Under god." I am an atheist, and I do not believe in a higher power. I will not pledge allegiance to something I do not believe in. 
2. "and to the republic for which it stands" I do not pledge allegiance to a republic that will send its military personnel into a war that is pointless and based on religion, and greed (See: Iraq/Afghanistan).​
​


> It's interesting that you talk about having rights, but you didn't stand up for the pledge for the very country that gave you those rights. Almost a double standard.



See above. I am not unsupportive of my country or military personnel. But I will not stand up for something, and place my heart on my chest for something that I DO NOT BELIEVE IN. I'll observe moments of silence respectfully, and with thoughts about those who passed, and my condolences for their family. I will not recite the pledge of allegiance, as it's my constitutional right. 

Allow me to reiterate, I used my personal experiences as an example. This is not the subject at hand.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> The police need to have probable cause to look at the guy's ID. He was pointing a camera at a freeway, not moving it, taking long exposures. There was no probable cause,


Really? What is the definition of "probable cause" in his state? I am not a lawyer, and, if I understand correctly, you are not either. I don't think either of us can make an assessment of what the police-officers at the time determined to be 'reasonable'.



o hey tyler said:


> This isn't Nazi Germany.


Please tell me that this statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Comparing a modern-day policeman in the US asking someone what they're doing on a bridge late at night to Nazi-era Germany is ludicrous. I would suggest that you head down a local retirement home and see if you can find someone who might have lived in Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, or other large city and have them describe for you what life was like!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



You're right it's not the subject at hand.  Do you have respect for the police and the job they do and what is required for them to do that job?  You must hate having money in your pocket......"In God we trust"  It is your constitutional right to not support certain aspects of your own country, until you need them.


----------



## zcar21 (Mar 2, 2012)

It's all about control. The guy just didn't want to be interrogated just for taking pictures. I have been interrogated in the airport and it's bullsh... Almost made me want to say to them, do you know who are the real terrorists, trafficking guns, drugs, etc. But we can't do anything, they're above the law.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

so what im hearing is that if a cop approches someone and he says im not doing anything illegal. then the cop should just say okay and walk away? reality here is no one in this forum knows if he was doing something illegal or not. he had a camera and was taking pictures, does that mean he couldnt have been throwing rocks off the overpass at cars, sitting there smoking dope. waiting for someone to do a drug deal?  was he doing that? probalby not. but none of us knows and neither does the cop. the cop was just trying to find out what he was up to. simple. ive been in that situation before, i was nice to the cops. showed my id, told them what i was doing and no big issue. this guy who starts telling the cops he knows the law and he's not going to do this or not do that because hes not doing anything wrong  just instantly causes the cops to wonder whats really going on. guy just looked stupid when he said he new the chief and when they asked him who it was, he then backtracks saying well his dad knows him. sorry but the guy just looked like an idiot who was trying to make things worse.



  have you ever watched an episode of cops. its amazing how almost everyone they arrest always says they weren't doing anytihng wrong as well.  im sorry but doing something so simple as showing a cop your id isn't throwing away your rights as a person. its just common courtesy.


----------



## Forkie (Mar 2, 2012)

I have to side with the people who said he should've just shown his ID and been done with it.  It's got nothing to do with "upholding rights/constitution blah, blah", it's simply a matter of courtesy and being a civil citizen.

The police saw someone using equipment by the side of the road.  Perhaps it looked suspicious from their car as they drove by, therefore they investigated.  That's the police's job - if they *didn't* investigate and it happened to be a terrorist with a remote control for a bomb on the motorway would you still be talking about rights and constitutions?

This guy deliberately provoked the police to the point where they were no longer interested in just a checkup.  The very fact that he refused to show ID made him look guilty of something.  If he had just said "Good evening officers, of course you can check my ID, you'll see that I'm Jo Bloggs and I'm innocently taking photos", the police officer probably would have said "Sorry to disturb you.  Thank you for your time, enjoy the rest of your evening".  That would have been the end of that.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

John, I suggest you RE-WATCH the video. The guy was simply standing there, taking photos on a bridge or overpass. Which is indeed public property. He himself is quite knowledgeable of the law in Pennsylvania, and states that to the police officer. Throughout the entire video, the police never ONCE presented him with a reason for their questioning... Which basically means that there was no probable cause. The guy even explained to them what he was doing, and the cops acted ignorant towards him. Like they'd never seen a stop motion video consisting of stills. 

The police didn't read him his Miranda rights either, which in doing so would have told him that he "has the right to remain silent." Even though he cited that in the video. 

This is clearly a situation where police officers are overstepping their bounds and infringing upon photographers rights. Just like on the hundreds of other youtube videos that you'll see on the same subject. 

And yes, the Nazi Germany statement was a bit tongue in cheek. However, this instance is very similar to "some nameless military or police power" coming up to someone and demanding identification without a reason or probable cause.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> You're right it's not the subject at hand.  Do you have respect for the police and the job they do and what is required for them to do that job?  You must hate having money in your pocket......"In God we trust"  It is your constitutional right to not support certain aspects of your own country, until you need them.



No, I don't have respect for _most_ police officers. For reasons such as this. 

My debit card doesn't say "in god we trust" on it. So I have no issues with that. 

You're Canadian anyway, what do you care? You don't know me, you don't know what I have been through, or my family has been through. Don't lecture me, grandpa.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

The dude was being a d**k head and we know it.  I've been pulled over many times for speeding.  I was respectful to the cop, didn't make up some crazy story, and have been let off many times.  There are times I'm working on a clients site late at night, and I'll give the local police a heads up that I will be there so when they see someone going in and out they know it's me.  Just be respectful to authorities, they appreciate that and will leave you alone.


----------



## zcar21 (Mar 2, 2012)

Forkie said:


> "Sorry to disturb you. Thank you for your time, enjoy the rest of your evening". That would have been the end of that.



Yeah right. I don't know about the UK but I have been to several countries and cops aren't that nice. Especially, Mexico and US.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> This is clearly a situation where police officers are overstepping their bounds and infringing upon *photographers *rights. Just like on the hundreds of other youtube videos that you'll see on the same subject.



He's a guy trying to take some cool pictures.  Not a professional journalist trying to cover an important story.  Did he really want to go through this hassle just to take some pics?  Get a permit, or approval, or something and go back and do it again.  There's a lot of paranoia going on in some of these posts.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> The dude was being a d**k head and we know it.  I've been pulled over many times for speeding.  I was respectful to the cop, didn't make up some crazy story, and have been let off many times.  There are times I'm working on a clients site late at night, and I'll give the local police a heads up that I will be there so when they see someone going in and out they know it's me.  Just be respectful to authorities, they appreciate that and will leave you alone.



He was respectful to the cop IMO. He even said "I want to be respectful" and "I don't have to show you my ID, because I'm not committing a crime." He wasn't committing a crime. 

It's strange that so many people will roll over and play dead when they're rights are being infringed upon. But hey, if you like being wrongfully questioned by a police officer for not committing a crime, that's your thing.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > This is clearly a situation where police officers are overstepping their bounds and infringing upon *photographers *rights. Just like on the hundreds of other youtube videos that you'll see on the same subject.
> ...



He doesn't need a permit, if he did, the police should have mentioned that and it actually *would have been* probably cause for questioning him. 

And no, there's not a lot of paranoia in these posts. What there is, is a lot of people willing to disregard their constitutional rights. Which is sad.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> NickA said:
> 
> 
> > The dude was being a d**k head and we know it.  I've been pulled over many times for speeding.  I was respectful to the cop, didn't make up some crazy story, and have been let off many times.  There are times I'm working on a clients site late at night, and I'll give the local police a heads up that I will be there so when they see someone going in and out they know it's me.  Just be respectful to authorities, they appreciate that and will leave you alone.
> ...



But how did the cop know he wasn't committing a crime unless the cop asks?  Should the cop just observe and come up with his own opinion without asking questions?

It's not rolling over, it's being respectful to the people we pay to protect us.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> John, I suggest you RE-WATCH the video. The guy was simply standing there, taking photos on a bridge or overpass. Which is indeed public property.


Is it?  Or is it publicly accessible private property?  I assume that is public property, but in fact we don't know that for sure.



o hey tyler said:


> He himself is quite knowledgeable of the law in Pennsylvania, and states that to the police officer.


Sorry, I have to disagree with you here.  He tells the police that he knows the law.  I could tell you that I know a lot about medicine; are you going to let me remove your appendix?



o hey tyler said:


> Throughout the entire video, the police never ONCE presented him with a reason for their questioning...


I can't watch the video here at work ('though I have watched it a couple of times), but I thought that they indicated to him that they wanted to know what he was doing ona bridge at night.  I think that would constitute a reason for their questioning.



o hey tyler said:


> Which basically means that there was no probable cause.


I don't think either of us are qualified to decide that, but if I had to bet, I would bet that most courts would disagree with you.



o hey tyler said:


> The guy even explained to them what he was doing, and the cops acted ignorant towards him. Like they'd never seen a stop motion video consisting of stills.


Really?  Come on... most people have no idea what makes us tick and why we would spend all night standing on an overpass taking pictures of traffic.  Police are no different.



o hey tyler said:


> The police didn't read him his Miranda rights either, which in doing so would have told him that he "has the right to remain silent." Even though he cited that in the video.


 My knowledge of US law is a little vague on this point, but AFAIK, the Miranda Act is only applicable when a person is being arrested. 



o hey tyler said:


> This is clearly a situation where police officers are overstepping their bounds and infringing upon photographers rights.


Clearly?  I think that point is debatable.



o hey tyler said:


> Just like on the hundreds of other youtube videos that you'll see on the same subject.


 And how many of those were set up with the intent of deliberately bating police?



o hey tyler said:


> And yes, the Nazi Germany statement was a bit tongue in cheek. However, this instance is very similar to "some nameless military or police power" coming up to someone and demanding identification without a reason or probable cause.


Mmmmmm.......  I don't think anyone who lived in the 30s-40s Germany would agree with you, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> He was respectful to the cop IMO. He even said "I want to be respectful"...


Come on dude...  I can tell you that "I'm trying to [anything]".  That does NOT mean that's it true or sincere.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

Well John, you can just lay down on the ground and put your hands behind your back, throw your wallet on the ground and ask not to be tazed the next time you're being questioned. After all, that's what the police want you to do, whether or not there's probable cause. 

You have the right to disagree with my viewpoints as you seem to be much more republican/conservative than I, just as I have the right to uphold MY rights. Which I would do in that situation.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Well John, you can just lay down on the ground and put your hands behind your back, throw your wallet on the ground and ask not to be tazed the next time you're being questioned. After all, that's what the police want you to do, whether or not there's probable cause.
> 
> You have the right to disagree with my viewpoints as you seem to be much more republican/conservative than I, just as I have the right to uphold MY rights. Which I would do in that situation.





this right here just shows how biased you are against anything a cop would do. no, thats not what cops want to do.  ive met way more nice cops in my life then ive met asshole cops.   this guy was being a pain in the ass to the officers so they were being a pain in the ass back, this isn't about your rights and police brutallity, its just about a guy being an asshole and getting the same thing back he was being given. just because he was there with a camera doesnt make this some big fundamental stand on goverment and rights.   its just simple about respect. and the lackthere of.


just because you feel that the cops should have left just because the guy said he wasn't doing anything wrong is laughable.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > You're right it's not the subject at hand. Do you have respect for the police and the job they do and what is required for them to do that job? You must hate having money in your pocket......"In God we trust" It is your constitutional right to not support certain aspects of your own country, until you need them.
> ...



Pretty sure I didn't lecture you on anything. You have the right to say or do anything you want. You're right, I don't know anything about you or your family, I only piece together my opinion on what you say on this forum.   So far my opinion is neutral, as you have made some valid points.

The video shows a guy standing on a bridge, does it show what he may have been doing before hand, I still believe that he baited the cops into the situation looking to start his own youtube career, he kept pushing and was probably hoping for more.  My bet is that this same guy will show up again on youtube pulling the same crap.  Tyler why don't you start your own youtube career, would love to see you piss yourself when your "rights" get stepped on for talking like a tough guy.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 2, 2012)




----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

zcar21 said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > "Sorry to disturb you. Thank you for your time, enjoy the rest of your evening". That would have been the end of that.
> ...



Actually they are quite nice here in Minnesota.  I've been asked what I was doing on a bridge at night.  I responded with "just taking some photos for fun" and the officer would say.  "Thanks, enjoy the rest of your night" and drive off.


I've never been asked for an ID unless I was driving a motor vehicle.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > NickA said:
> ...



Umm yeah, exactly.  If he didn't look suspicious(taking photos is suspicious?) he had no reason to even stop and question him.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Well John, you can just lay down on the ground and put your hands behind your back, throw your wallet on the ground and ask not to be tazed the next time you're being questioned. After all, that's what the police want you to do, whether or not there's probable cause.
> ...




Officers are like judges, they are not supposed to act indifferently based on an attitude of an individual.  The are taught to remain calm and collective even when a "supsect" is not.  It would  be very, very wrong of an officer to be an "asshole" back.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...




Sorry Tyler, I had to......


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

jake337 said:


> NickA said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...




so what is your definition of suspicious? hanging out by himself on a bridge overpass? at night?   i know  around this area they have been putting large fences up over overpasses because people were going around throwing rocks and cinderblocks over on cars below.  maybe they were checking him out to see if that was going on . then you ask for id and he refuses and you start thinking. okay myabe this guy has a warrant out. now im pretty suspicious of the guy.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

jake337 said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



well then if you guys feel the photographer was being nice, by that defination id have to say the cops were being nice as well.     cops are also taught to look at how people responds  and when you avoid giving someomeon your name, refuse to show id id imagine they would start thinking this guy could be wanted for something since he's making a big deal out of it.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> so what is your definition of suspicious? hanging out by himself on a bridge overpass? at night?   i know  around this area they have been putting large fences up over overpasses because people were going around throwing rocks and cinderblocks over on cars below.  maybe they were checking him out to see if that was going on . then you ask for id and he refuses and you start thinking. okay myabe this guy has a warrant out. now im pretty suspicious of the guy.



Exactly.  Maybe he fits the description of something that happened earlier that night.  Maybe there are "No Standing", "No Walking/Stopping" signs posted all over.  We only see a 3 minute video of some dude being an idiot to the cops and don't know the whole story.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Well John, you can just lay down on the ground and put your hands behind your back, throw your wallet on the ground and ask not to be tazed the next time you're being questioned. After all, that's what the police want you to do, whether or not there's probable cause.


Okay, I think that might be just a little uncalled for; I'm not advocating any sort of rolling over.  What I am trying to say in my own, long, and painful way is that (1) We only have one side of the story, and (2) I don't actually know what the applicable laws state, so I don't know if he is doing anything wrong or not. 



o hey tyler said:


> You have the right to disagree with my viewpoints as you seem to be much more republican/conservative than I, just as I have the right to uphold MY rights. Which I would do in that situation.


You'd be surprised.  I am very much opposed to police exceeding their authority and very much support people exercising their rights.  Again, my point is:  We (or at least I) don't know what his rights were in this case.

It's my experience that most people who preach law actually don't know very much about it.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> It's my experience that most people who preach law actually don't know very much about it.



Exactly.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> just because you feel that the cops should have left just because the guy said he wasn't doing anything wrong is laughable.



..and showing an ID also proves what?

They are there to asses the situation.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > just because you feel that the cops should have left just because the guy said he wasn't doing anything wrong is laughable.
> ...



Proves he may not be the person they are looking for.  Or that he has no outstanding warrants.  Or he is who he says he is.  Or that he has nothing to hide so why not?  Or that he doesn't want to cause a scene and waste the time of authorities when they can be out dealing with actual criminals.  There are at least two authorities on the scene, right?  What a waste of time because this dude decides tonight is the night he wants to be a proud US citizen and stand up for his rights.

Don't you think if he just showed his ID, explained what he was doing they would have just let him be?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> Don't you think if he just showed his ID, explained what he was doing they would have just let him be?



Let's take this one step further.  Let's assume that he DID show his ID and they then continued to press him on what he was doing and asked him to leave. At what point WOULD you stand up for your rights?  At what point do the police cross the line?


----------



## zcar21 (Mar 2, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> NickA said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think if he just showed his ID, explained what he was doing they would have just let him be?
> ...



I understand the guy's reaction. The cop was suspecious of the guy just for taking pictures. Even if he had produced his id right way, the cop would continue harrasing him with questions (imo) because he had his mind set that the guy was doing something wrong. Anyone who has been interrogated by the police without any probable cause knows this.

Here's his work.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> NickA said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think if he just showed his ID, explained what he was doing they would have just let him be?
> ...



Good question.  I don't know what I would do.  I'd show my ID and explain what I was doing.  If they still asked me to leave I'd probably just find another spot.  It really wouldn't be a big deal to me because I can get that shot anywhere.  Like I said; I pick my battles.  If the cops do want me on a bridge taking pictures then fine; I'll go somewhere else and take them.  If they continue to harass me for no reason then I'd have an issue with that.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > NickA said:
> ...



...and that's what I was saying about the whole rolling over and not standing up for your rights on public property. You shouldn't have to move and start over if you're not doing anything illegal.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > 12sndsgood said:
> ...



I actually don't think he was being nice, either was the officer.



There are far too many variables to really have a solid ground to interpret the video.

We do not see the demeanor of the officer or photography pre-video.  We really can't see during the video either, mostly just voice.  We cannot interpret either person's body language either.  Who really knows what is going on.


Anything I've written is just based on my personal experience with officers and not the video in question.  One needs to know when to stand their ground and when to let things slide.  As do most experienced officers.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 2, 2012)

A. He shows his ID, they ask a few questions, who knows maybe one of them is into photography as well and they start talking about it. 

B. He doesn't show his ID, he is hiding something, they become suspicious, he refuses to answer questions, he has a problem.

C. He acts like a jerk, he gets treated like a jerk, he has the constitutional right to be a jerk.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 2, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> NickA said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think if he just showed his ID, explained what he was doing they would have just let him be?
> ...



He did show the cop his ID, and the cop continued to harass him. I'm on Tylers side on this one. The cops were assholes. He was there with a tripod and a camera. No pile of cinderblocks or whatever else you're trying to incriminate him with possibly doing.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

Bossy said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > NickA said:
> ...





jake hit on it above.  we dont know that. you dont know that. nobody in this forum knows that. all you know is the brief scene your shown. people are quick to say this guy was innocent and doing nothing illegal, nothing wrong but they have no idea where this guy is, no idea what he was doing before he started filming but they have allready decided in there minds that just because he said he is innocent then he obviously must be.

im not trying to incriminate him. im saying we don't know. and the cops didnt know so they were trying to find out.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> jake hit on it above.  we dont know that. you dont know that. nobody in this forum knows that. all you know is the brief scene your shown. people are quick to say this guy was innocent and doing nothing illegal, nothing wrong but they have no idea where this guy is, no idea what he was doing before he started filming but they have allready decided in there minds that just because he said he is innocent then he obviously must be.
> 
> im not trying to incriminate him. im saying we don't know. and the cops didnt know so they were trying to find out.



We don't know what?? That theres not a pile of bricks next to him? You don't think that would be the first thing the cops said?? No, they asked him what he was doing, what he was taking pictures of. You can clearly see the camera/tripod, he even pans around and you don't see anything else. What exactly are you making up here?

I'm baffled as to how this is even debatable.  The guy can be an ass within his rights all he wants, the cops need to be professional and they weren't. They asked what he was doing, he explained, happily, and the cops still bothered him. Its pretty basic.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 2, 2012)

Strobist had a blog post on this topic just the other day, but not about the specific video at the top of this thread.  Anyway, it's interesting in context of the topic:  Strobist: How to Avoid Dealing With the Police When Shooting in Public


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

Bossy said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > jake hit on it above.  we dont know that. you dont know that. nobody in this forum knows that. all you know is the brief scene your shown. people are quick to say this guy was innocent and doing nothing illegal, nothing wrong but they have no idea where this guy is, no idea what he was doing before he started filming but they have allready decided in there minds that just because he said he is innocent then he obviously must be.
> ...



We don't know that there weren't signs posted.  We don't know if maybe the cops were looking for someone that matches this guys description.  Cops tend to be cautious, which is how they are trained.  If you talk to a cop like this dude did, then you will get treated that way every time.  I mean really, was this the time to be an a-hole about your rights to take a picture?  Yeah, a picture. Pack up your gear, go home and call a lawyer.  Call the chief of police.  Call the newspaper. 

Or, stand there and waste the time of authorities when they have better things to do.  Like protect you.  What if your house was being robbed while you were in it while this dude whines to the cops about wanting to take a picture of cars?


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 2, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Strobist had a blog post on this topic just the other day, but not about the specific video at the top of this thread.  Anyway, it's interesting in context of the topic:  Strobist: How to Avoid Dealing With the Police When Shooting in Public



Hint:  Copy & paste the article to your word processor.... it's white text on a dark gray background.  I HATE people who do that crap!


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Strobist had a blog post on this topic just the other day, but not about the specific video at the top of this thread.  Anyway, it's interesting in context of the topic:  Strobist: How to Avoid Dealing With the Police When Shooting in Public
> ...



Me too, that is the worst.  I will leave a site immediately if I see the white on black.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> We don't know that there weren't signs posted.  We don't know if maybe the cops were looking for someone that matches this guys description.  Cops tend to be cautious, which is how they are trained.  If you talk to a cop like this dude did, then you will get treated that way every time.  I mean really, was this the time to be an a-hole about your rights to take a picture?  Yeah, a picture. Pack up your gear, go home and call a lawyer.  Call the chief of police.  Call the newspaper.
> 
> Or, stand there and waste the time of authorities when they have better things to do.  Like protect you.  What if your house was being robbed while you were in it while this dude whines to the cops about wanting to take a picture of cars?



I'm not going to go into "what if" lala land with you. From what I saw of the video, the cops were wrong to continue to harass him. The photographer had nothing wrong with his tone until after the cop kept insisting on his ID and basically acting like an asshole. When the photographer tried to assert his rights, that he didn't have to show him his ID because 1, he was on public property, which the cop didn't dispute, and 2, he wasn't doing anything wrong, which the cop again didn't dispute, the cop called in backup and was even more of an ass. I don't even have an ID on me most of the time. That's my right. 
And when is it not a time to be an A hole about your rights? I didn't serve in the Navy so people had to bend over and take it here in the US.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Strobist had a blog post on this topic just the other day, but not about the specific video at the top of this thread.  Anyway, it's interesting in context of the topic:  Strobist: How to Avoid Dealing With the Police When Shooting in Public
> ...



Yeah, I hate it when the contrast ratio is the same as black on white too. It's so terrible.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

Bossy said:


> I'm not going to go into "what if" lala land with you.* From what I saw* of the video, the cops were wrong to continue to harass him. The photographer had nothing wrong with his tone until after the cop kept insisting on his ID and basically acting like an asshole. When the photographer tried to assert his rights, that he didn't have to show him his ID because 1, he was on public property, which the cop didn't dispute, and 2, he wasn't doing anything wrong, which the cop again didn't dispute, the cop called in backup and was even more of an ass. I don't even have an ID on me most of the time. That's my right.
> And when is it not a time to be an A hole about your rights? I didn't serve in the Navy so people had to bend over and take it here in the US.



There is a lot of "what if" going on.  You are "what if-ing" on what you saw.  We don't know when the video started.  Maybe he was an a-hole already.  See what I mean?  We have no ideal of what the whole story is.




Bossy said:


> I didn't serve in the Navy so people had to bend over and take it here in the US.



Thank you for that :thumbup:


----------



## CMfromIL (Mar 2, 2012)

I'm not sure of the laws where the person was on the bridge (PA?), but in IL, he would have gone to jail for filming the police with AUDIO.  It's a felony in IL, and currently under review by both the legislature, and the courts.  Recently it was found to be unconsitutional by 2 lower court judges, but it hasn't worked its way through the appeals process.

You can video tape w/out audio, but not with audio.

As far as 'just show the ID' crowd, that's not what America is about.  We are not a 'show me your papers' country, nor should we strive to be.  If you are in a public area, not breaking any laws you should be free to move about w/out harrassment.  If the officer had probable cause to need ID, then he should have stated it.  He asked, the camera guy declined.  That's his right.  It's not hiding anything.

No more than I'd let an officer come into my home and toss my belongings about looking for drugs on a whim, simply because 'I don't have anything to hide'.  There is no reason for the officer to need to see the ID, and there is no reason for the citizen to provide them.


----------



## theregoesjb (Mar 2, 2012)

PA does not have a "stop and identify" statute (according to wikipedia anyway) Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dont know how that affects filming a police officer. I would like to think that if you are not involved with any criminal act and on public property filming and a police officer enters into the situation without any legal reason then it shouldnt matter if you film them. Otherwise that could make it somewhat easy to accidently commit a crime all the time.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

well i'll just agree to disagree with you guys.  i'll continue talking to the police with respect and showing my id and going about my business without anytime wasted and you guys continue to argue with the police and have your time wasted. i have more pressing things to do then sit and argue with police.


----------



## skieur (Mar 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > The police need to have probable cause to look at the guy's ID. He was pointing a camera at a freeway, not moving it, taking long exposures. There was no probable cause,
> ...



Legally, unless you are driving a car, you are not required to carry ID in Canada or in the US. I would venture to say that any state laws to the contrary would violate the American Constitution.  Since you are not required to carry ID, you are not required to show it.  I was once stopped by provincial police in a car full of people that was driving up the highway sideways in what the police would have considered to be suspicious circumstances.  They impounded the car but the only ID they asked for was the license, ownership, and insurance of the driver.

If they arrest you they can ask for ID, but even then it can be a "John Doe warrant" but without a charge the arrest won't hold, since taking photos is not illegal.

If more people stood up for their rights like the photographer in the film, there would be LESS harassment of photographers by the police.

skieur


----------



## CMfromIL (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> well i'll just agree to disagree with you guys. *i'll continue talking to the police with respect *and showing my id and going about my business without anytime wasted and you guys continue to argue with the police and have your time wasted. i have more pressing things to do then sit and argue with police.



Who said anything about being disrespectful?  The officer asked, and the photographer declined to produce ID.  That's not disrespectful, thats being a citizen in the USA.  No more 'disrespectful' than going to the voting booth, owning a firearm, speaking your mind in public or any other host of protected rights under the constitution.

There is a time and a place, and specific requirements for needing to show ID.  Declining to produce it at a time that it's not required is not being disrespectful.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

skieur said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



A post from Skieur that I agree with! Nice!


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not.   cop "why are you taking photos"     guy" because i can"   sorry but thats just a snotty remark.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not. cop "why are you taking photos" guy" because i can" sorry but thats just a snotty remark.



Your missing the point.  Your attitude should not matter to the officer.  He's there to asses the situation not you as a person.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...




without a charge the arrest wont hold. but most of us prefer not to spend the night in jail wether were right or wrong.  you guys may be fine with not showing your id and beign arrested and then later let go. i prefer to just be nice, let them see my i.d. and keep shooting photos.  heck, ive even gone to a cop and had him move his car because he was in the way of my shot.  treat the police nice and you get treated nice in return.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not.   cop "why are you taking photos"     guy" because i can"   sorry but thats just a snotty remark.



Well, it's an accurate remark. He IS taking photos 'because he can' and shouldn't have to worry about the police coming up to him and asking for his papers.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Well of course you want to be treated as you treat others.  But if I feel I am being stood on, I'll defend my rights.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

jake337 said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not. cop "why are you taking photos" guy" because i can" sorry but thats just a snotty remark.
> ...




attitude matters to everyone. wether your a cop, a store clerk, a customer service agent.     should not and does not are two diffrent things.  you shouldn't speed. but how many of us do that. this is reality.    if im an officer and your being an ass and refusing to show me your i.d. im wondering what you are hiding.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



I would much rather spend a night in jail for not committing a crime, then contacting the ACLU upon my release and getting the officer fired or at the very least reprimanded.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not.   cop "why are you taking photos"     guy" because i can"   sorry but thats just a snotty remark.
> ...



come on. someone says that to you, your going to think, "what an ass"


----------



## cepwin (Mar 2, 2012)

That's the thing...in this day and age everyone is so worried about terrorism and such anything out of the ordinary can lead to unwanted attention even if it's innocent.    The police are no different.   As far as I know if you're not driving there is no requirement to carry id in the US....I think if any locally tried their would be major pushback.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

jake337 said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not. cop "why are you taking photos" guy" because i can" sorry but thats just a snotty remark.
> ...



But he can't accurately asses the situation without asking questions and finding out who he is dealing with.  And he is there to assess the person as well, they are part of the whole situation.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...





i guess thats the diffrence. id just show him my id so i could continue my photography.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > 12sndsgood said:
> ...



What 'situation' are you referring to? The one where the guy was doing long exposures of a highway at night to compose a short film out of? Seems hardly like a police "situation" to me. More like someone trying to mind their own business and pursue an artform.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > 12sndsgood said:
> ...



For some reason, I suspect the police officers would make him leave (unconstitutionally) even after showing his ID. They had it out for him.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> I would much rather spend a night in jail for not committing a crime, then contacting the ACLU upon my release and getting the officer fired or at the very least reprimanded.



Are you being honest?  In that situation, you would spend the night (or longer) in jail instead of just handing over your ID?  If so, I gotta hand it to you for sticking up for what you believe in.

Jail is not a fun place, even for just one night.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> Are you being honest?  In that situation, you would spend the night (or longer) in jail instead of just handing over your ID?  If so, I gotta hand it to you for sticking up for what you believe in.
> 
> Jail is not a fun place, even for just one night.



Yeah.  Silly him. Standing up for what is right as opposed to getting steam-rollered by uninformed LEos.



Here's the deal, sheeple:  _I_ have rights.  _You_ have rights.  _We all_ have rights.  But the minute we start succumbing to improper acts by law enforcement, then our rights will suddenly disappear.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I would much rather spend a night in jail for not committing a crime, then contacting the ACLU upon my release and getting the officer fired or at the very least reprimanded.
> ...



Yes, I am being honest. Frankly, I am not too afraid of our local holding cells. I live in a very small town (20,000 people max). That's exactly what I would be doing, is sticking up for what I believe in. Cops should be aware of citizens rights, and if that's the way that I need to send a message, then I'll do it. It's just a night in jail anyway. It's not like I was committing a crime.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

480sparky said:


> NickA said:
> 
> 
> > Are you being honest?  In that situation, you would spend the night (or longer) in jail instead of just handing over your ID?  If so, I gotta hand it to you for sticking up for what you believe in.
> ...



I wouldn't call authorities asking you why you are on top of a bridge taking pictures of traffic at night being steamrolled.  I call being racially profiled being steamrolled.  I call some of the things going on in our schools being steamrolled.  I call SOPA being steamrolled.

Come on man, the cop asked for ID and what he was doing.  Steamrolled, really?


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Yes, I am being honest. Frankly, I am not too afraid of our local holding cells. I live in a very small town (20,000 people max). That's exactly what I would be doing, is sticking up for what I believe in. Cops should be aware of citizens rights, and if that's the way that I need to send a message, then I'll do it. It's just a night in jail anyway. It's not like I was committing a crime.



Well, if you were a defense attorney and I was in need of one, I'd want to hire you to defend me.

I understand the principal of what's going on, but I just think it's a dude taking pictures.  And just a cop being the way most cops are.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...




i just feel otherwise. i feel if he had just had a better attitude the police would have left him alone.  


i dont have any issue with sticking up with something you believe in. but i also believe in choosing my battles. and something as small and meaningless as this just isnt worth it to me.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> I wouldn't call authorities asking you why you are on top of a bridge taking pictures of traffic at night being steamrolled.



Not at all.  They are there to_ investigate_.  They are will within the law asking what the guy is doing there.  "Taking a time-lapse video."  Taking video is not illegal.  Therefore, the LEO has no legal authority to demand ID.  It is the person's RIGHT to refuse such a demand.  It's as simple as that.




NickA said:


> Come on man, the cop asked for ID and what he was doing.  Steamrolled, really?



_Asking_ for an ID is not getting steam-rolled.  Refusing to comply to an unlawful demand is not either.  _Succumbing to it_ IS getting steam-rolled.  See the difference there?


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I am being honest. Frankly, I am not too afraid of our local holding cells. I live in a very small town (20,000 people max). That's exactly what I would be doing, is sticking up for what I believe in. Cops should be aware of citizens rights, and if that's the way that I need to send a message, then I'll do it. It's just a night in jail anyway. It's not like I was committing a crime.
> ...



Accept "most" officers know and understand the rights of the individuals they swore to protect and serve.  That is not how any of the officers I've spoken with, been pulled over by or questioned by have treated me.  They have treated me with the same respect I treat them.  If they cross that line, my voice will be heard.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 2, 2012)

THIS:








Is how it's done!


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

480sparky said:


> THIS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice! See, the person in question even had an open carry gun on him and he was not harrassed! That officer of the law understood and respected the individuals, that he swore to protect, rights.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> Come on man, the cop asked for ID and what he was doing.  Steamrolled, really?


Did you even watch the video? If that was all he did, there wouldn't be anything to discuss.


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

Bossy said:


> NickA said:
> 
> 
> > Come on man, the cop asked for ID and what he was doing.  Steamrolled, really?
> ...



Yeah, I watched it twice.  The first time I missed the fact that the dude actually handed over his ID.  Wish we knew if he ended up having to leave or if they continued to let him shoot.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > NickA said:
> ...



I would check the comments but theres like 11 pages hah.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 2, 2012)

That officer rocks btw. Made me tear up a little bit


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

jake337 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > THIS:
> ...



That is nice to see.  Unfortunately not all cops are like that, especially in small towns like mine where they have nothing better to do but pull me over for a tail light that was out.  How am I supposed to know it's out; it's in the back of the car!


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

NickA said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Check before you go driving, lol.  I understand what you are saying.  I've been pulled over nearly 20 times in the last few years without a ticket or warning handed out.  It usually seems they are pulling me over hoping to find something to make their department some more money.


----------



## IByte (Mar 2, 2012)

Ballistics said:


>








This video is similar, the cops were trying to tell her you can't video tape them because their lives were in danger.  I a deep respect for law enforcement, but sometimes they go to far.  BTW, the cops were investigated for possible racial profiling during a traffic stop, she won 8)


----------



## MSnowy (Mar 2, 2012)

480sparky said:


> NickA said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't call authorities asking you why you are on top of a bridge taking pictures of traffic at night being steamrolled.
> ...



I believe if you watch the video closely. You will see the photographer has his car parked right next to him on the bridge. In most states it's a traffic violation to park on bridges and overpasses. If this is the case here the officer is investigating a traffic offense. When being investigated for a traffic violation you must produce a valid operators license (I.D.)


----------



## NickA (Mar 2, 2012)

MSnowy said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > NickA said:
> ...



I wondered that as well, but didn't want to bring up another "what if".  In some of the bridges I go over, I see No Stopping or No Standing (or parking) signs on it.

Either way, at this point in the thread just about everything has been covered and either agreed or disagreed upon.  It's been a rather friendly debate actually; kind of nice to hear opinions expressed respectfully.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 2, 2012)

It is illegal to park on bridges in PA, but why wouldn't the cop just say hey, you can't park here?


----------



## Josh220 (Mar 2, 2012)

Bossy said:


> It is illegal to park on bridges in PA, but why wouldn't the cop just say hey, you can't park here?



That's not nearly enough of a scene to give him his hard-on. Far more force is required to get that power rush.  

I was a Criminal Justice major until I saw the types of people who were getting into the field (classmates and instructors). Needles to say, I am no longer a Criminal Justice major...


----------



## IByte (Mar 2, 2012)

Bossy said:
			
		

> It is illegal to park on bridges in PA, but why wouldn't the cop just say hey, you can't park here?


He was wearing his big boy shorts and was treating the photog like a hippy.  Did you see when the officer was confused and he said, "what's a time lapse"?


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Mar 2, 2012)

David of the Strobist Blog addressed this issue in a recent post.  Here's a link to "The Photographer's Rights" PDF.

LINK:

Bottom line:  The Po-Po's can't do crap to you if you're in public.  You can record them all you want to, even if they tell you to stop.  If they harass you, or try to take your camera or equipment, you can file formal complaints or sue the department...or worse, go to the paper with the story.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

Bossy said:


> It is illegal to park on bridges in PA, but why wouldn't the cop just say hey, you can't park here?



http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...e-photographer-video-title-3.html#post2523177


----------



## SCraig (Mar 2, 2012)

I didn't read this whole post, too much information overload, so sue me if someone else covered it.

There are two sides to every argument.  From the side of the photog he was being "Hassled" by the police.  From the side of the police they see a guy on the side of the road in the middle of the night taking photographs down on passing cars, and they stop to see what is going on.

Personally, in this day and time I'd rather they stop and ask me a dozen times when I'm doing nothing wrong than NOT stop the one time I need them to.  The entire situation would have been avoided had the photographer simply shown them his ID.  Did he have to?  I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.  Was there a reason not to?  Nope, none other than being an ass.  Were the police officers within their rights to ask for it?  Yes, they were.

Now, more to the point:  Have *I* ever been asked for my ID when I was doing nothing wrong?  Yes, I have.  Did I show it to the police officer?  Yes, I did.  What did he do then?  He said, "Thank you, sir.  Have a good evening." and both of us went about our business.

Situations like this would be a whole lot simpler if people would just put themselves in the shoes of the police from time to time.  How would you like to walk up to a guy in the middle of the night, no clue what he is doing, no way of knowing if he's high or drunk or nuts or just plain normal?  Police officers have one goal each and every time they go on duty: To go home in one piece when their shift is over.  To do that they have to be careful.  They have to treat every stop as if the person is armed and dangerous because the one time they don't he probably will be.  They also have to tread the narrow line between being careful and polite.  They have to be politically correct with everyone they meet.  They have to be able to justify everything they say or do.

Am I a police officer?  Nope, I wouldn't do their job for anything in the world.  I am, however, grateful for the fact that they are there, and when I come into contact with one I treat them with the respect that they deserve as long as they treat me with the respect that I deserve.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 2, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > It is illegal to park on bridges in PA, but why wouldn't the cop just say hey, you can't park here?
> ...



What are you linking me too?


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

Bossy said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Bossy said:
> ...



My post #38 with a cut of "Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas". You can't park your car here!  Thought it was fitting to your comment!


----------



## IByte (Mar 2, 2012)

Very true scraig, I watched the video again it sounded like both were giving each other hard time.  If I was there I would have told them I,m taking the time lapse photos explained what that was and handed them my ID.  Then told them I wanted to continue my work.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 2, 2012)

Haha love that movie <3 this is bat country!


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Haha love that movie <3 this is bat country!



100% classic!  "How much they pay you to fvck that polar bear?"


----------



## skieur (Mar 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not. cop "why are you taking photos" guy" because i can" sorry but thats just a snotty remark.
> ...



Actually the photographer should fill out a police report for harassment against the officer. If there is no follow-up, then he can get action from the prosecutor's office or a judge. Taking pictures is not an illegal activity so the officer had no legal reason to stop him, ask questions or ask for ID. What the officer did was illegal.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Mar 2, 2012)

jake337 said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > its his attitude. regardless of wether its legal or not. cop "why are you taking photos" guy" because i can" sorry but thats just a snotty remark.
> ...



His answer"because I can" is literally CORRECT.  He has every right to do so.  Anyone who considers that attitude is the one with the problem.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Mar 2, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Well, in New York, some of those who spent the night in jail turned around and sued the police for unlawfully stopping them, unlawful confinement, false arrest etc. and they WON for judgements from $5,000 up from the police.  Comments from one judge indicated that he could not believe the less than intelligent actions of the police.

skieur


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 2, 2012)

MSnowy said:


> I believe if you watch the video closely. You will see the photographer has his car parked right next to him on the bridge. In most states it's a traffic violation to park on bridges and overpasses. If this is the case here the officer is investigating a traffic offense. When being investigated for a traffic violation you must produce a valid operators license (I.D.)



"His" car?  He never said it was his.  There is just a car there. And I never saw any "No Parking" signs.


----------



## adversus (Mar 3, 2012)

I love the circular logic in this thread.

1.  Police's job is to protect and serve, a task which involves knowing what's going on in their area of responsibility
2.  Cop stops to chat with someone, at night, on a bridge
3.  People up in arms at Police taking steps to know what's going on in their area of responsibility
4.  Repeat #1


----------



## IByte (Mar 3, 2012)

adversus said:
			
		

> I love the circular logic in this thread.
> 
> 1.  Police's job is to protect and serve, a task which involves knowing what's going on in their area of responsibility
> 2.  Cop stops to chat with someone, at night, on a bridge
> ...



True, and I think the photog should have used some better manners.  Tge photog immediatly went in


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 3, 2012)

adversus said:


> I love the circular logic in this thread.
> 
> 1.  Police's job is to protect and serve, a task which involves knowing what's going on in their area of responsibility
> 2.  Cop stops to chat with someone, at night, on a bridge
> ...



But here's what happened:


1.  Police's job is to protect and serve, a task which involves knowing what's going on in their area of responsibility
2.  Cop stops to chat with someone, at night, on a bridge
3. Police get answer, then through their own ignorance act illegally and unprofessionaly
4. Civil rights violated
5. 15 pages of posts created on innernets forum


----------



## MSnowy (Mar 3, 2012)

480sparky said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > I believe if you watch the video closely. You will see the photographer has his car parked right next to him on the bridge. In most states it's a traffic violation to park on bridges and overpasses. If this is the case here the officer is investigating a traffic offense. When being investigated for a traffic violation you must produce a valid operators license (I.D.)
> ...



When I watched the video I noticed wires coming out of the car to his tripod. I know in MA its the operators responsibility to know the traffic laws. Sign or no sign you cant stop on a bridge or overpass and hangout.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 3, 2012)

MSnowy said:


> .......... Sign or no sign you cant stop on a bridge or overpass and hangout.



Huh?

Since when?


----------



## MSnowy (Mar 3, 2012)

480sparky said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > .......... Sign or no sign you cant stop on a bridge or overpass and hangout.
> ...



since they passed the law.   Penn DOT. Part lll Chapter 33 Rules of the Road in general   subchapter  E STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING  Prohibitions in specified  places 3353.. section B (vii) Upon any bridge or other elevated structure, upon a highway or within a highway tunnel.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 3, 2012)

MSnowy said:


> since they passed the law.   Penn DOT. Part lll Chapter 33 Rules of the Road in general   subchapter  E STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING  Prohibitions in specified  places 3353.. section B (vii) Upon any bridge or other elevated structure, upon a highway or within a highway tunnel.



"In specified places".

Sorry, I don't live in PA, so I can't address the laws there, but I'll bet that doesn't say No Stopping on *ALL* bridges.


----------



## MSnowy (Mar 3, 2012)

480sparky said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > since they passed the law.   Penn DOT. Part lll Chapter 33 Rules of the Road in general   subchapter  E STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING  Prohibitions in specified  places 3353.. section B (vii) Upon any bridge or other elevated structure, upon a highway or within a highway tunnel.
> ...




How much?


----------



## tirediron (Mar 3, 2012)

*Okay, this is NOT a debate on traffic laws in various states.  Can we please re-rail this thread or (preferably) let it die?  I think it has pretty much run it's course.*


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 3, 2012)

Please lock this nonsense!


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 3, 2012)

If the clown had been polite to the cop.. and not tried to play "barracks" lawyer... nothing would have happened. The police are assumed to  have the right to ask anyone, anywhere for ID at anytime.. if they see what they consider suspicious activity. To a cop that doesn't know what you are doing.. photographing cars on a bridge at night could be considered a suspicious activity.  Even the Supreme Court has upheld the right for police to ask for ID. Stating your name is adequate in most places.. but if you are driving a vehicle, then you had better have your license on you.   Being a SmartA$$ like the clown in the video is only asking for trouble!

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Court: If police ask, you must give your name / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com


EDIT: I HATE this kind of stupid video crap.. because it will encourage  some moron to go out and get into a conflict with the police.... just  because he "CAN". Don't believe me? Remember all of the stupid "JACKASS"  imitators putting themselves into hospitals????.. people will imitate  any kind of IDIOCY.... it is ridiculous!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 3, 2012)

MSnowy said:


> How much?



Ten million dollars.





























































How come there are *PARKING METERS *on some bridges in PA?

I accept PayPal.  Thank you.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 3, 2012)

*Apparently some have trouble reading this morning.  We're done here.  Move along... nothing more to see.*


----------

