I've been arrested twice in three years for photographing cops against their wishes

[RagingInMiami]

The first time was back in 2007 in an incident that was http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x272761">first discussed on DU. That compelled me to start a blog on photographers' rights because photographers getting harassed and arrested for doing something that is protected by the First Amendment is an ongoing issue.

The http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:OrSmzhIGePsJ:www.miamibeach411.com/news/index.php%3F/news/comments/reporter-arrested/+miami+beach+411+reporter+arrested&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a">second time was last year on Miami Beach in a incident I just started publicly talking about because I did not want it to interfere with the probation conviction from the first arrest.

I had been placed on a one-year probation after my first arrest because a biased judge allowed improper evidence during my trial. He allowed the prosecutor to introduce portions of my blog to convince the jury that I hate cops, which is why I got myself arrested, even though that blog did not exist at the time of my arrest.

Because of this, the jury acquitted me of refusing a lawful order and disorderly conduct, but convicted me of resisting arrest without violence. I appealed that conviction pro se (without a lawyer) and http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/20/i-won-my-appeal">won it, which nullified the conviction and my probation, even though I served a year.

This is good because now all I am facing is a resisting arrest charge from my second arrest instead of a probation violation, which would have sent me to jail for a year. All for taking photos of cops in public.

So this is an ongoing battle for me. I not only write about these issues on an almost daily basis on my blog, I am out fighting the battle on the streets. It has cost me thousands in legal fees, way too many hours behind bars and several lost job opportunities because I am considered controversial.

This is why it is so important for me to win the Sun-Sentinel Best Overall Blog contest. I am currently in second place behind a blog about the Miami Dolphins which has a strong and loyal following, so they are constantly voting.

For me, winning the contest is more than the $100 gift certificate at Target. I'm willing to donate that to a poor family.

For me, winning the contest is about further establishing my blog as a legitimate source of information about police abuses. It's about making more people aware of these incidents that occur on a daily basis.

It's about sending a message to police and judges that people are paying attention.

And I really need DU's help in this because this is the only site that has the mass numbers that I need to help me beat that sports blog. And it would be almost like coming full circle considering I first wrote about my first arrest here where it ended up going on http://flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/402725350">Digg with more than 2,400 votes.

To vote, you need to register on the Sun-Sentinel, which takes a couple of minutes. However, once you register, you can vote at least once a day in each category.

This is what I ask of you:

1. Create a free Sun-Sentinel account (requires valid e-mail address). Click https://secure.sun-sentinel.com/services/site/registration/show-createprofile.register">here to do that.

2. Click http://interactive.sun-sentinel.com/community/ssblogcontest/voting/best.php">here to vote for Photography is Not a Crime as the Best Overall Blog in South Florida. You can type in "Photography is Not a Crime" into the search box on the screen or just find it in the drag down menu. Then click on "Vote For best overall."

3. Click http://interactive.sun-sentinel.com/community/ssblogcontest/voting/index.php">here and scroll down to the categories of "Art/DIY," "Photography" and "Politics" and click the "vote" link under Photography is Not a Crime (this step is not as important as step 2 if you're in a rush, but it helps).

Remember, you can vote in each category at least once a day until 10 a.m. (eastern time) on March 1st.

[rrneck]

1. done K&R nt

[RagingInMiami]

2. I also like to say that I donated to DU more than 24 hours to reinstate my donor status

But so far it hasn't done it yet.

I'll always be a DUer, even if I stay away and focus on my blog, which is what I've been doing the past three years.

[intheflow]

5. That's weird!

I might drop the Admin a line about the star. Might have been a problem with your transaction because my star has always appeared immediately after a donation.

Congrats on your blog doing so well, Raging! I've been voting right along! :hi:

[Maru Kitteh]

8. I just sent a request to ask them to fix that for you

Hopefully that will get cleared up :-)

[951-Riverside]

3. Stuffing a camera in a police officers face while screaming about your first amendment rights....

Is bound to get a negative reaction and I'm sure you're fully aware of this which is why you keep doing it.

One of the cops told me to keep walking because this was a "private matter".
I said that I will not keep walking because this is a "public street".

You're not an innocent journalist just taking photos you have an axe to grind.

[intheflow]

7. Municipal servants rough people up

and a private citizen on public land takes a photo. And you want to blame the citizen? :wtf:

[RagingInMiami]

9. So I should have just kept walking because the cops told me to?

I never stuck a camera in anybody's face. I shoot from a respectable distance. Getting in their face would be interfering with an investigation, which is illegal.

I stay out of their way to let them do their job, but I expect the same respect.

[951-Riverside]

44. That was your choice. You could have chose to keep walking and filed a complaint

Instead you chose to argue your perceived rights, was arrested, put on trial, was convicted by a jury and placed on probation. Despite all of this you chose to do the same thing all over again.

I assume you argued your 1st amendment rights yet for some reason (that you probably left out of your post) they didn't rule in your favor.

[EFerrari]

59. The conviction was overturned. And thank gawd someone is fighting

for our "perceived" rights.

[laughingliberal]

214. I agree. What a nation of good little followers we have become. nt

[Selatius]

63. Your reading comprehension is low. In his post, he clearly states his conviction was overturned.

And further, he stated that the judge improperly allowed "evidence" into the case that did not even exist at the time of incident (i.e. blog entries made after the incident occurred).

[EFerrari]

73. The really creepy thing that I read about the first case

was the judge saying that he showed a shocking lack of remorse -- for what amounts to being beat up while doing his job!

That was unreal.

[Ikonoklast]

97. Your agenda is showing...once again.

And your reading comprehension is nil.

[immoderate]

108. "You could have ... filed a complaint"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Why didn't the Freedom Riders, Vietnam Protesters, Suffragists, and Abolitionists think of that?

I mean nothing gets more action than "filing a complaint." That's why we have complaint boxes.

--imm

[Moochy]

124. complaint boxes..

complaint boxes are to complaints as

free speech zones are to free speech.

:+

[laughingliberal]

217. Thanks. What a damned country of wimps and go alongs we have become

It's disgusting to think what some went through in many conflicts to gain and protect the rights of all and see today's average American ready to negotiate away those rights or turn a blind eye to the violations of them. Anything to avoid getting off the couch, I guess.

[RagingInMiami]

243. When you have cops investigating cops

The complainant is the one who becomes the suspect, not the cop

[bobbolink]

285. .

:applause:

Excellent!

I wonder if we will ever again be a nation of Freedom Riders, Vietnam Protesters, Suffragists, and Abolitionists?

Affluency has weakened us.

[winyanstaz]

136. Yes you chose to behave like a person that actually had any rights!

Damn it..when will you learn that a good citizen is a good slave and just obey?:sarcasm:

[olegramps]

168. Can't uyou read or are you so biased against the guy that you choose not to do so?

The CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED. He isn't guilt of anything except expressing his rights as a citzen. Would you run along if told to by cops who are beating the hell out of one of your fellow citizens?

[TommyO]

182. Perceived rights? They're real rights, and they were abridged.

[RagingInMiami]

241. Did you not read the part where the judge allowed improper evidence?

So no, I did not leave that part out of my post.

[Maru Kitteh]

11. So did the people who photographed this

[Echo In Light]

25. +1

[mike_c]

104. bingo!

[midnight]

213. What a story that photo tells...

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[951-Riverside]

37. Loitering, disorderly conduct, interfering with a peace officer, disturbing the peace...

Obstructing a peace officer, interfering with an investigation, etc are all crimes. Of course the OP failed to detail the specifics of the charges he faced or if he had prior convictions for similar conduct.

In the first instance the OP could have simply walked away and filed a complaint against the officers instead he chose to do otherwise and by his own admission convicted and placed on probation. I hope any media agency that decides to pick up this story do a little research before jumping on this story.

I had been placed on a one-year probation after my first arrest because a biased judge allowed improper evidence during my trial. He allowed the prosecutor to introduce portions of my blog to convince the jury that I hate cops, which is why I got myself arrested, even though that blog did not exist at the time of my arrest.

I'd love to learn about which part of the blog they cited in their case also the OP's blog is publicly accessible, not sure why he would think that couldn't be used as evidence. In any case overly aggressive photographers (and there are 3 or 4 in every major city) make it increasingly difficult for professional photographers who don't have an axe to grind to make a decent living.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

52. Except none of that happened. He wasn't interfering with that crime scene

And there's photographic evidence to prove it.

Do you have a job? How long would you keep it if you just were told to walk away from it?

Your smearing of this poster shows you're not familiar with this case, with him or with the law.

[951-Riverside]

96. Re: "He wasn't interfering with that crime scene"

I never said it was a crime scene.

Do you have a job? How long would you keep it if you just were told to walk away from it?

Employers tend to have a problem with their employees engaging in conduct that ends up getting them arrested and convicted so I wouldn't expect to have a job for long if the circumstances were the same plus each day in jail = lost revenue. Of course I have no idea what his employment status is nor do I really care.

you're not familiar with this case

You're right. I would love to have a copy of the court documents and police reports instead of just going by his version of events but that will never happen.

Google: Nicole White TSA
http://www.eyeonannapolis.net/2009/10/17/tsa-blogger-goes-into-hiding/

[EFerrari]

98. The docs are posted to the blog. Edit:

And this is what the SPJ says in case you are remotely interested:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=016561358561312553625%3Ajrlnopll9n0&q=Carlos+Miller&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A0

[cartach]

158. Because he's an obvious nut case.

[EFerrari]

230. It must be terrible to channel J. Edgar Hoover.

[winyanstaz]

244. And your obviously an UnAmerican that hates civil rights...

Go live in communist china if you want to live like a damned dog of a slave.
We are Americans damn it...and we are NOT going to take this shit any longer.

[winyanstaz]

138. It is NOT a crime to stand around and take a few pictures...

It is not "loitering" to be walking around in a public space unless you have been there for a long time. The public has a right to be in a public space.

The police have NO right to order a citizen out of a public space unless they are breaking a law. They are NOT your Masters so get up off your knees.

It is also not a "crime" to hate a cop...nor is it a "crime" worthy of a years probation for heaven's sake.
If you think so...show me the law.

Where was he interfering in anything? That is something I believe you just pulled out of your hat.

It is not "obstructing" a police officer to take their picture either.

Its news....its a paid public servant being photographed by his boss for heaven's sake. The servants are NOT the boss you kowtowing wimp. So now the taking of photos of possible news or public servants is a CRIME??

Things written in anger about an unjust arrest AFTER THE FACT is not "evidence". It is an opinion which was written after the fact and not admissible as evidence of the person's thoughts at the time of arrest.

Thought crimes are not on the books yet dang it.... And again..its NOT A CRIME TO HATE A COP.

What the !@##$%# is the matter with you people???...You are nothing but a yellow belly coward if you are not OUTRAGED at the loss of civil liberties and the way the police and the courts are acting anymore.

You are brain-washed sheeple to allow this to continue and to justify it is beneath contempt.......and unworthy of freedom.

[barbtries]

164. love your rant

and incidentally i agree wholeheartedly.

[Blue_Tires]

193. well said

[Ignis]

216. +1

"Please may I exercise my civil rights, Mr. Police Officer?" is no way to run a free country.

[laughingliberal]

220. " to justify it is beneath contempt.......and unworthy of freedom."

Right on! What the hell is wrong with us, these days? Your post is excellent!

[olegramps]

169. I think you are posting on the wrong board if this reflects your convictions.

[SteveM]

200. "loitering." Heard that a lot as a kid (Pre-'64 Civil Rights Act).

[Macoy]

294. Wow

Wow, attacking some one for documenting what the authorities are doing on a public street. What’s that phrase the cons use?? If you are doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide” I think documenting what the police are doing is a great thing.

Seems to me that the good police would want their actions publicized, if only to counter all the cop bashing. Of course, bad cops don’t want the publicity.


Macoy

[EFerrari]

51. Except that didn't happen. No camera was stuffed in anyone's face.

And journalism isn't on trial here.

[LanternWaste]

91. And precisely how far away should one be from an LEO

"Stuffing a camera in a police officers...."

And precisely how far away should one be from an LEO whilst holding a camera to not have it considered "stuffing?" What is that answer based on?

[JVS]

112. -1,000,000

[nyc 4 Biden]

118. - 1 million

guess u've never been beaten up by a cop.

[citizen snips]

120. It's not innocent journalism

It's just amateur muckraking.

[KonaKane]

140. Spoken like a real German resident, ca. 1935.

[Hissyspit]

144. What you post is utter crap.

Sorry. It is.

I worked as a professional journalist and photographer for several years.

http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

[unapatriciated]

273. Just read the first part of your link and damn, we broke the law last May in NY

My dad is a retired bridge builder (west coast). We took many pics of different bridges while we were in NY. We made a nice gift for him using those pics.
The things you learn on DU:shrug:

[TommyO]

181. There are no laws against photography on a public street

Arresting somebody for participating in a legal activity on a public street is an egregious abuse of power.

[kenfrequed]

190. wow...

You really have already decided percisely what the scene looked like. Complete with stupid action movie impression of a journalist/activist as being an instigator. Nice how you take the word of cops who you never met and whose side of the story you haven't even heard.

I suppose the first amendment is kind of irritating and why should police ever have to bear the burden of public scrutiny?

[rhett o rick]

201. And what is your axe to grind?

IMO the police have gotten too pushy. They manhandle people, taser people, shoot people, and even kill people without much oversight. There is a very fine line here and we all should make sure they stay on the proper side of the line. It's bad enough that our government is borderline fascist without letting the police rough people up with impunity.

[laughingliberal]

215. We all should have an ax to grind with law enforcement arresting people engaged in perfectly legal

activities which are protected in the bill of rights.

[Hugabear]

247. "Stuffing a camera in a police officer's face" - it's easy to see which side you support

Take a look at this photo, and tell me where the "stuffing a camera in a police officer's face" comes in.

[Gormy Cuss]

256. Nice post, Judge Fernandez. n/t

[Cleita]

4. Legally you are supposed to ask permission before you photograph

anyone in public or at the very least inform them that you took a picture and then ask them permission to use it publicly. I know it's hardly ever done, but it has something to do with right to privacy laws.

[RagingInMiami]

6. You're absolutely wrong

Maybe in some other country, but not the U.S.

[winyanstaz]

139. You are correct...

It is polite to ask..but it is NOT the law.

[RagingInMiami]

12. This is why my blog is important

Too many people are uninformed about these laws

[Maru Kitteh]

17. That's true of private citizens, but not public officials doing their jobs

Or public personas, i.e. celebs.

[RagingInMiami]

18. It's not even true of private citizens

Although I personally do ask permission unless they are doing something outrageous or just drawing attention to themselves.

But legally speaking, nobody has an expectation of privacy if they are out in public.

If I can see you, I can photograph you.

If you are in a dressing room or a public bathroom, the rules change, of course, because you have an expectation of privacy.

[Cleita]

43. See my post #40 n/t

[msanthrope]

19. "Legally" can you cite an actual law? n/t

[Cleita]

40. Right here.

http://communications-media.lawyers.com/privacy-law/Photography-or-Video-Taping-Consent.html

Photography or Video Taping Consent
Text Size:


Lawyers.comsm

People take their cameras with them to many different places and photograph or videotape lots of people doing different things. Depending on what you videotaped or photographed and where you used your camera, you just might expose yourself to a lawsuit unless you got consent from the people that you taped or photographed.

You can't help but videotape or photograph other people when you take your camera and go out to a crowded place or out by yourself and shoot photographs or movies of some scene that interests you. Be careful, if you intend to sell the videotape to a local television news company or publish it in the local paper. If someone is featured in that shot or footage, that person just might sue you for invasion of privacy unless you obtained their consent.

More at link.

[msanthrope]

47. Fail. You cited no law. You are conflating possible civil tort with criminal

liability. Civil tort simply does not apply to what the OP is facing.....

[Cleita]

48. Whatever.

See what you want to see, even though it's in your face. I suppose you didn't get to this part.

Generally, it is perfectly legal to videotape or photograph any person and anything while on public property, except:

You cannot take pictures of areas that are usually considered private such as bedrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, hotel rooms and so on
Certain public places have banned the use of cameras such as mass transit systems, courthouses, capital buildings, secured government buildings, jails or prisons unless you obtain written permission
You cannot film or photograph if it interferes with police, fire, medical or emergency operations

[Bjorn Against]

62. What the OP was doing does not interfere with the officer's jobs

It is perfectly legal to take pictures of the police unless it is in direct interference with them, in other words you can't go stand next to an injured person and start taking pictures of them if you are getting in the way of the police or medical teams that are trying to help them. As long as you keep your distance and don't stand directly in the way of the police as they work it is not legally considered to be interfering with a police officer to take their picture.

[Edweird]

65. "if it interferes" photographing from distance DOES NOT INTERFERE.

[Selatius]

66. MAJOR caveat you miseed: "...interferes..."

If I'm across the street filming the police doing something, then how could the police say I'm interferring unless I am within physical reach of them?

[Cleita]

70. Haha, you haven't been around police action much have you?

They can say you interfered until a judge and jury says you didn't. In the meantime enjoy your trip to jail.

[Selatius]

72. Actually, I have. I was a rescue volunteer with the Red Cross following Katrina.

Saw a lot of shit go down that didn't need to go down. Lots of people were arrested in those days, and a lot of them were released without charges, which tended to lead to a lot of lawsuits against the police, especially those cases the NAACP and ACLU and NLG got behind.

But then again, it's irrelevant to whether or not there was police interference. As a public servant in a public setting, the police officer has no real claim to privacy in regards to stopping journalists or anybody else from filming them while on duty in public, especially since nearly all police forces now use dash cameras to film their actions in regards to motorists.

[Cleita]

75. So you see how one act leads to another that leads to a lawsuit.

There are laws that protect people's privacy. Now in a public disaster, sure everyone is going to be out there taking video and film and it will all be sorted out by our courts in the end, but to claim that you have any right to photograph anyone, anywhere in public without possible consequences is disingenuous. I have taken pictures at protests in the past, but I always have asked permission first. Many people have thanked me and allowed me to photograph their signs while they hid their faces behind them. Many have said no so I don't take a picture. With everyone running around with cell phones today taking picture of everything that happens we are facing major violations of our privacy to even go shopping for eggs.

I would also resent anyone coming into my workplace taking pictures of me at work without my consent. I believe the police and firemen feel the same way.

[Selatius]

79. I never claimed photography of the police entailed absolutely no consequences.

Even in my posts on this thread, I've already mentioned that people have been falsely arrested. My issue is whether the arrest and possible charges resulting from the arrest are just or are just trumped up. If we assume that the person is speaking the truth, then the charges against him were false, since they were overturned.

But again, I reiterate that as a public servant operating in a public setting, the officer has no real legitimate claim to stop photographers or journalists or anybody else out in public from filming them, and if the officer feels resent, then that's really too bad, unless, as your paralegal citation shows, the journalist is interfering with the police officer's duties. Feeling resent is no excuse to breaking the law by abusing police powers.

Furthermore, if the police officer does break the law and files false charges against an innocent person, not only could he face consequences from internal affairs up to and including termination, he could also face an expensive civil lawsuit from groups fighting for civil rights from the NAACP to the ACLU and more.

Legally speaking, you need no permission to film a public servant such as a police officer on duty in the public.

[Cleita]

81. I'm not dissing RIM for his activism or even his moral righteousness in doing

so. All I'm saying is that there are laws out there and many of them are admittedly fuzzy. He is putting himself into a position of possibly being arrested no matter how wrong it may be from an ethical point of view. Cindy Sheehan got arrested for wearing a T-shirt and many other times for her activism. Dr. Flowers got arrested by Senator Max Baucus for asking to be able to speak in front of his committee for single payer health care. I even put up a post about it and how outrageous I thought it was, yet many DUers agreed with the Senator. Eventually, I'm sure the court system will judge him as guilty or not guilty. But if he really feels strongly about this issue and keeps doing it, he can expect to keep being arrested until he gets enough people and public officials outraged about it to do something about it.

[Selatius]

84. The point is legally you don't need permission to film police in public.

That's been established precedent for a long time now. Only if you interfere is there grounds for arrest, but aside from that, no, he didn't need any permission to film the police. Given that the charges were overturn at trial, I think it's safe to assume that the charges were false. He wasn't filming anybody else. He wasn't filming a private citizen, nor was he doing anything like crashing a congressional committee hearing. He wasn't doing any of that, and none of that is relevant as a result.

All he was doing was filming on the street a public servant, a police officer. That's not illegal, and the courts affirmed it when it overturned the charges on appeal. That's the point I'm trying to drive home, and ultimately, I'm responding to your original post, the post that started this subthread and several others that he needed permission to film, and legally he didn't.

[Cleita]

86. See, "the courts affirmed it when it overturned the charges on appeal" just

what I have been saying if he's not at fault. But the fact is he had to do that whole jail thing. Police don't arrest arbitrarily unless they think they can make it stick, so there is a basis there of law that they were basing his arrest on.

[Selatius]

89. But that's still beside the point. You still don't need legal permission to film them in public. nt

[Edweird]

90. So, you finally admit that there is NO LAW?

[liberation]

147. ... and it only to like 10 posts to do so.

yay!

Some posters in this site seem to be unable to wrap their heads around the concept of due process, and why that is supremely important for any functioning free society. After all, the police and the power brokers have never ever done anything wrong, ever... thus their actions are what they are because they are, and otherwise they wouldn't be so... and that is that ergo they are justified and always correct.

Good Americans, indeed.

[RagingInMiami]

101. Police arrest arbitrarily all the time

Because most people don't bother fighting the charges in court

[RedCappedBandit]

115. "Police don't arrest arbitrarily unless they think they can make it stick"

Is that a joke?

[HillbillyBob]

137. Its not a joke in Miami!

They will arrest you for lookin stoopid.
Just maybe it depends on mrs cops attitude when mr cops went to work in the am.

I left after my experience there..and I lived there for a couple years. I moved bat to FtLaud where actin stoopid was normal..

then when the stoopids elected Naugle (and some job downsizing etc) we moved to Mayberry NC..Haven't seen anyone arrested here unless they were doing something outright unlawful..as in I have not seen anyone arrested here at all..maybe it is that folks and police are more law abiding.

[dbmk]

167. Must be

There has of course never been a case of someone been arrested for doing something the cop(s) just did not like them doing, wihtout there being a legal support for the arrest. Not ever. Has never, ever happened.

(Is this where I put a sarcasm smiley?)

[kenfrequed]

196. Clearly the poster had never been to a protest.

People there are arrested frequently and released without charges shortly afterwards.

[TiredTexan]

130. Are you a lawyer?

Doesn't sound like it. I am, and you are dead wrong. You cannot use someone's likeness for commercial purposes without permission. Commercial purposes does not include any use by the press. Commercial purposes does include using someone's likeness for advertising. Moreover, even if you do use someone's likeness without permission and for a commercial purpose, it is not a crime. That person can sue you for the money you made from the transaction.

[olegramps]

170. Like trumped up charges claiming he was interfering with them beating up some citizen?

There are far too many cases of the police engaging in unlawful actions to be coming to their defense.

[CLANG]

179. That is the root of your misconceptions...

Police arrest people all the time with no real cause other than the wish to harass and punish those they don't like.

[unapatriciated]

274. Your joking right?

I lived in a small town during the grocery strike of 2003
The police openly took the side of our manager (who was also a couch for the local football team).
We were harassed endlessly, for walking a legal picket line.
Our manager even tried to put out a restraining order against hubby and myself (for legal picket line activities).
Which would mean we couldn't man our line.
He lost in court but that didn't stop the local cops from harassing us daily, asking for our id's, running them and threatening us with arrest if we didn't comply. This was a very small town and I had checked their groceries many times over a period of five years. I was on a first name basis with most of them so they knew who we were and had no need to constantly ask for our ID's. For them to ask for my id on a daily basis was intimidation and harassment. We filed a complaint, all that accomplished was an increase in their harassment.

[TommyO]

189. The laws are not fuzzy at all

In public, you can take photographs, it's that fucking simple.

[Bjorn Against]

78. I see you completely abandoned your legal argument

While the police can say anything that does not make it a legal argument that will hold up in court, and if they arrest someone for merely taking a picture they can be sued for a lot of money.

[Selatius]

82. Cleita's argument never existed. You don't need permission to film police in public nt

[Cleita]

83. Or a judge can throw out any charges for false arrest or whatever they do.

The fact is that there is an issue here that makes photographing people without their permission different than walking on the sidewalk in front of their house. If you step on their property then you might be guilty of trespassing. There is a difference that turns it into a legal matter no matter how fuzzy it may seem.

[Edweird]

85. There's nothing 'fuzzy' about it. It is clear cut. The only thing confusing about this

is left wing support for authoritarianism.

[Cleita]

87. Well, if we didn't support the rule of law then we'd be libertarians and

worshipping on the altar of Ayn Rand.

[Edweird]

88. So why don't you support the rule of law? Why do you hate our rights?

Here is the law:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

[Cleita]

93. I do support the rule of law, however, laws vary by municipalities and yours

seems to be about Oregon. What problem do you guys have with asking people if you can take pictures? I do it all the time. I'm trying to document some problems in my area about poverty and homelessness, but I always ask first. If you feel that you want to risk filming police and other officials or maybe not official like gang bangers because you are a good citizen, by all means, follow your conscience but be prepared for the consequences if things don't go so well. I mean how many photojournalists have been killed documenting revolutions and such not to mention being thrown into jails and beaten and tortured. They are heroes but they are well aware of the fact they are going into the jaws of the shark.

[Edweird]

94. The law is the law. You are on the side of rights violations by authoritarians, not the law.

Educate yourself.

The Constitution does not vary by municipality.

[TiredTexan]

132. Laws about photographing someone in public don't change

by jurisdiction within the US. You are wrong. There are civil suits brought for using someone's likeness for commercial gain, but no criminal statutes due to the First Amendment. Reporters are protected in every jurisdiction here by the First Amendment. However, if a reporter took a picture and used it to sell a product without permission, then he could be sued for the money he gained from the transaction unless he obtained permission from the person. Such permission never has to be obtained by the press for photos taken in public and used in reporting.

[liberation]

149. You are aware that we live in a constituional democratic republican federation. Right?

I am just checking, because reading your posts tends to point to the contrary. The constitution applies to every single inch of our country... except maybe for whatever area the tertiary syphilis ridden body of Dick Cheney happens to hoover over.

[olegramps]

171. By your reasoning citizens shouldn't demand their rights if the cops intimidate them?

If my recall of history is correct this is how the Brown Shirts brought Hitler to power. But, after he came to power he so feared these ruthless thugs that he had them massacred.

Anyone who is given authority over their fellow citizens must be subject to intense evaluation to assure that they are not abusing their authority. Sadly, we have far too many police who are guilty of abuse and far too many citizens that condone it.

[RedCappedBandit]

110. Supporting illegal abuse of power, clearly, is not supporting the rule of law.

[Ignis]

218. The rule of WHICH law, in this case? (nt)

[RedCappedBandit]

109. Police can say and do lots of things

They routinely abuse their power, and get away with it just as often.
That doesn't make it right, legal, OR acceptable.

That is why what the OP does is courageous AND crucial.

As for the legality of his actions, there is no question. You've shown that you were wrong and only keep digging the whole deeper.

[HillbillyBob]

133. That's the truth

Ever live in Miami?
Bang Bang your daid stop Miami Police!!!

I was arrested when a guy broke into my apt and clobbered me with a skillet off my stove the called the Miami Police and told them I tried to kill him....

He was a former druggie roomie (not on the lease) whom I had put out for slugging me and robbing me(i reported it, they never bothered to show up) .

They stormed the apartment. While I was on the floor having a nice grandmal seizure, they clubbed me, pepper sprayed me and charged me with resisting arrest with violence then threw my ass in the county lock up for 8 months.
I was charged with a felony resisting arrest with violence. While the intruder was out the next day..lived in my apartment wrecked my car.....

I now have a felony on my record. When I went before the judge the dick pubic att pleaded nolo contendre. When I said I had something to say I was told to shut the fuck up. Then given 12 mos probation...

go Ragin in Miami ..don't get dead, you need to expose these pos for the criminals they are.

My partner and I went to Vt to get married, due to a small legal problem we did not.
We decided to go to Montreal on a whim..we got stopped at the border and all that felony bullshit came up and we were turned back..but only after 'questioning'.

[blueamy66]

156. Absolute bullshit

and I won't be able to sleep tonight...

[Incitatus]

127. You are right .They can say that and send an innocent person to jail.

I'm glad we have people in this country who stand up against this bullshit.

[TommyO]

188. So many fascists here at topix

[laughingliberal]

222. Enjoy your stay in the police state!

I think the 'interference' LEO's are worried about these days is the 'interference' with their abusive tactics towards citizens which have been captured on videos and in photographs and nailing them on their illegal uses of force and harassment of people. Easy to see why law enforcement calls it 'interference.'

[msanthrope]

105. Again, I ask you to cite a law. Not the Intertubes. You offered a legal

opinion, kindly support it with something of substance.

[TommyO]

187. Note the key word in your highlighted sentence: Interferes

Photographing in public, from outside of the line set up by the police is not interfering.

[Edweird]

77. That's about publishing, not the right to photograph. This is mis-information.

Here is the truth.

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

[TommyO]

186. From your own source:

Generally, it is perfectly legal to videotape or photograph any person and anything while on public property, except:

You cannot take pictures of areas that are usually considered private such as bedrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, hotel rooms and so on
Certain public places have banned the use of cameras such as mass transit systems, courthouses, capital buildings, secured government buildings, jails or prisons unless you obtain written permission
You cannot film or photograph if it interferes with police, fire, medical or emergency operations
There are also restrictions on videotaping and photographing on private property:

If the private property is open to the public, such as retail stores, private stadiums or tourist areas, filming may be allowed unless there are signs posted that expressly forbid videotaping or photography
If the private property belongs to someone other than a commercial business, you had better get the property owner's permission

[ManiacJoe]

227. Taking the picture vs publishing the picture.

Two very different acts with two different sets of laws governing them. The act of taking the picture has almost no restrictions. Publishing them has many restrictions.

[Cetacea]

292. You can publish it if it is editorial, just not commercial

[Bjorn Against]

34. If that is true can I sue all the people who put surveillance cameras around the city?

[Cleita]

41. See my post #40 n/t

[Bjorn Against]

49. The key words are right here...

"Depending on what you videotaped or photographed and where you used your camera"

Yes, you need to be careful about photographing in private settings, but you can photograph to your heart's content in public areas.

[Cleita]

53. Not really.

Read my post #48.

[Selatius]

67. Reread post number 48. You're missing something. nt

[Edweird]

68. Yeah, really. You are spreading a lot of mis-information.

Here is some truth.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

http://photography.about.com/od/copyrightinformation/ss/PhotoRights.htm

[Cleita]

Me? I'm only linking to a legal website. n/t

[Edweird]

74. Yes you. You are posting false information, and using unrelated text as 'proof'.

[Edweird]

76. Permissible Subjects

Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

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

[Edweird]

92. "Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights "

Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes.

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

[Downtown Hound]

126. You are absolutely completely without a doubt 100% wrong

If you are out in public, then you are subject to having your picture taken and there's nothing you can do about it. Look up the law for yourself. This is an area that has been argued by the courts incessantly and they have always ruled this way.

[KonaKane]

143. Wrong.

Not when you are witnessing the public's business (law enforcement) being attended to. That rule is only for private individuals.

[olegramps]

172. You are dead wrong and post the law that makes it illegal.

[Hissyspit]

145. Nope.

http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

Legal Rights of Photographers
Version 2.01 — May 2009
By Andrew Kantor • [e-mail]

Even before 9/11, photography had been under siege. Anyone with a camera
larger than a cell phone was considered some sort of threat, and since 9/11 it’s
only gotten worse.

There’s an incredible amount of misinformation about what rights photographers
in the United States have. People have written to me about how they were told,
“You can’t take pictures of police,” and “You can’t shoot children without their
parents’ permission” and “You can’t take pictures on private property without
permission.”

None of these are true.

Photographers have been harassed, threatened, and killed — all for capturing a
moment on a memory card or on film. Images have been deleted or confiscated,
police have been called, and innocent people have had to deal with know-nothing

- snip -

A school field trip. Do I even know
all these kids? Nope. But I don’t
need permission to publish this.
If you can see it, you can shoot it.

You can legally take pictures of anything that is visible to the general public (without special equipment
— e.g., a telephoto lens), whether it or you are on public or private property.

That means you can legally take pictures of children, athletes, people on the street, beach bathers,
buildings, cars, policemen, accident scenes, government officials, airplanes, airports, trains, and so on.
You can legally take pictures when you are on private property, if that property is open to the public
(e.g., a mall or office complex).

Perhaps a better phrase is: If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.
You do not need permission to take pictures. The answer to the
question, “What law says you can take that picture?” is “You’ve got it
backwards. What law says I can’t?”

All that said, there are two important caveats.

1. While there are few exceptions to what you can photograph,
there are exceptions to what you can publish. (More on that in
a moment.)

2. Although it is legal to take pictures while on private property,
you could still be guilty of trespassing if the owner of that
property tells you not to, or if he demands that you leave.

[PavePusher]

154. Public servents, performing their duties, in public...

have NO legal expectation of privacy.

How can you possibly think anything else, and claim to support liberty, freedom and/or transparent government?

[dbmk]

166. Only need approval for commercial use - not the act of photographing in public

And news reporting has its own exceptions on top of that.

You don't need permission to photograph anyone in public space - and that goes for most western countries.

[TommyO]

183. No permission is needed to photography anybody, or anything in public

[Warren Stupidity]

279. not true.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. Done. Just hope I don't get email from the paper.

[GReedDiamond]

13. Just voted for your blog...

...and I'll go back tomorrow and do it again.

Good luck, I hope you win it (and your court case).

[backscatter712]

14. Cops don't like being photographed when they're committing crimes... n/t

[Echo In Light]

27. And there's the REAL, true reason they're against filming

[laughingliberal]

224. It is absolutely the reason they are against it.

How many have been nailed for their illegal crap in recent years cause someone had a video camera nearby?

[Ignis]

35. Life was so much easier when they could just get 2-3 buddies to lie for them.

Now they have to stop the cameraman, arrest him, forcibly take his camera, make a hamfisted attempt at deleting the incriminating photos, etc.

Poor guys!

[mattvermont]

15. It really doesn't matter

what the motive is. It is a noble act to remind law enforcement that they are public servants
I, for one, applaud what you are doing, even if it pisses off cops.
It may be appropriate to ask a victim of the cops actions if you can photograph, but
the cops should have no say.

[gvstn]

16. Done! n/t

[ceile]

20. Done

[TuxedoKat]

21. Done

and good luck. I'll try and remember to vote every day. Please be careful though! You are brave to do this, but don't want you to get hurt. Some of those cops can be very vindictive.

[Fast Walker]

22. It is a slippery slope.

Law enforcement must be able to do their jobs unfettered by the general public. But I am also against banning of photography in public. As long as the police officers grant permission for their images to be taken I see no problem with it.

[Cal Carpenter]

24. Why should the officers need to grant permission?

How does taking pictures from a reasonable distance interfere with their activity?

[NNN0LHI]

36. Last time we allowed police to do their jobs unfettered by the general public ...

... we ended up with a death row full of innocent men.

Google "Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge" once.

Don

[EFerrari]

64. It's actually not a slippery slope. The law is clear about what

can be photographed and where and Carlos was yards away from these officers, interfering not at all with their work.

The real slippery slope that I see on this thread is paved with assumptions that Authority is always right -- without any resort at all to the facts of the case or to the law that protects our civil rights.

[olegramps]

175. The slippery slope is the cops abuse of their authority.

If the police are acting properly then they should welcome that their protection of citizens is being photographed.

What possible objection could they have about it being made public? Their only cause for objection would be that they don't want their abusive behavior made public.

Anyone that would attempt to argue that the police should be exempt from being observed and photographically recorded are living in the wrong country. I would suggest China would be a better choice.

[EFerrari]

229. Well said. Yes, that is the larger danger.

[RedCappedBandit]

100. "Law enforcement must be able to do their jobs unfettered by the general public"

Of course, if they're actually doing their jobs properly, there would be no reason to photograph them, nor would there be cause for concern on their part by being photographed.

[liberation]

151. Wow, so our constitution is a "slippery slope" now?

... I also do not know if you are trying to equate "unfettered" with "without scrutiny"

[sendero]

177. Idiot..

... sure, police officers committing the crime of official oppression are going to consent to being photographed.

God what is WRONG with you dumbasses?

[Ignis]

235. Does it also "beg the question?"

:banghead:

[RagingInMiami]

236. Should the videographer in the Rodney King incident have asked permission?

[msanthrope]

270. I don't need a cop's permission to exercise my constitutional rights.

Fuck that noise.

[Warren Stupidity]

280. must be able to do their jobs unfettered by the general public

oh really? And if their job happens to be violating the rights of the general public? But I digress, how exactly does recording what the police are doing 'fetter' them?

[MrScorpio]

23. That guy "Johnny Law" who comments to your blog is an idiot

And he's a cop too? I don't know what to say.

[TexasObserver]

26. Recommend

[niyad]

28. k and r--bookmarking so I can do this when I get back from the ICU

[xultar]

30. Feel Better!! Love and smooches!

[EFerrari]

58. niyad! Please check in when you can.

:hug:

[G_j]

29. funny, I've been photographed many, many times by them

at peace demonstrations, all the way back to the days of the Vietnam war.
It's always a one way street.

[Bjorn Against]

31. Thank you for standing up for the rights of all of us

[Blue_Tires]

32. hey! long time no see!

[Taitertots]

33. Police are only against filming because it documents when they break the law

Every single police officer should wear a helmet camera, a handgun camera, a 360 car mounted camera, and a backup chest mounted camera. They should be responsible for making sure everything gets filmed.

If they are caught turning the camera off(other than for bathroom) they should be fired on the spot. If there is a cases against them and they didn't document the incident there should be a 100% assumption of police guilt.

There is no reason outside criminal intentions to oppose police cameras.

[Jkid]

99. I like your idea!

Too bad it's a bit impractical. How it would be implemented though?

[Grand Taurean]

123. We have the technology for this.

[midnight]

225. What if the story they tell in the police report doesn't match the one told

by the camera. Suppose that the system has x amount of days before they tape over it, and you or your attorney don't get access to it.... Wouldn't most people believe that to be obstructing justice? Not sure but just another case of not wanting a filming to be viewed...

[Taitertots]

233. Then it would be obvious the police were lying

If they destroy the tape for any reason it should be criminal.

[Leftist Agitator]

38. You're at #1overall right now, Carlos!

Here's hoping that you stay there until Monday!

[blueamy66]

42. done

nt

[Michigan-Arizona]

45. Done! n/t

[stray cat]

46. I don't want someone following me around with a camera in my face - thats harassment

[EFerrari]

54. That would be harrassment. And it has nothing to do with this case.

Geeze, did you even bother to go look at the blog, the pictures, anything?

[demmiblue]

57. Some people watch too much TMZ.

:shrug:

Seriously, I remember when RIM posted this (before I was an official DUer)... chilling.

[EFerrari]

60. I remember, too. And remember being grateful he wasn't tazed.

The Society of Professional Journalists, unlike some posters to this thread, have been squarely behind him at every point. That should say SOMETHING about this case.

[Selatius]

69. Then you shouldn't become a police officer, who is a public servant. nt

[EFerrari]

50. Go, Carlos.

:kick:

[rcrush]

55. These cops don't like it either

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9k8L3oDa4

[proud2BlibKansan]

165. OMG the last one. The girl at Wendys!

[Scurrilous]

56. K & R

:thumbsup:

[annabanana]

61. done again. . n/t

[EFerrari]

71. He's looking good, anna!

:hi:

[Blue-Jay]

80. The cops in Chicago don't mind a few pics.

[Jokinomx]

95. Done... Good Luck... from a fellow photographer....

:toast:

[Scurrilous]

102. Kick

:kick:

[eomer]

103. Done (by a fellow Miamian)

Thanks for taking a stand on such an important issue!

I'll try to vote each day.

[EFerrari]

106. kICK

[RedCappedBandit]

107. Done and Done. K&R. And a thank you

It's funny that the pro-police-brutality crowd can not establish an argument without blatantly misrepresenting the actual scenarios.


"Shoving your camera in someone's face is harassment! What do you expect!"

Yeah? And when the hell was the OP shoving his camera in someones face? Taking pictures at a respectful distance while consciously avoiding getting in the way is not harassment.

"They told you to keep moving! You disobeyed!"

Police do not have the right to tell you to do random things just because they feel like it.

Let's say I was in the gym and a cop saw me doing an exercise in a way he was unfamiliar with. Does he have the right to command me to do the exercise differently? Would I deserve to be assaulted if I didn't listen?

Personally, I'm glad we have brave journalists like the OP. I have to assume that the posters telling him to just walk away and report it later simply don't understand the importance of quality journalism in a free society.


And as for "asking for their permission"? What a friggin' joke. If they were doing something that they wouldn't mind being photographed, would it even requite outside documentation?
Wake up people. Ask yourself: what reason would a cop have for doing everything in his power (and more) to prevent his/her actions from being recorded?
Uhhh.. HELLO!!! It's because they're doing something WRONG.

Sheesh.



Seriously OP, I commend your bravery and thank you for this service that you do for all of us. Photo-journalism has always had tremendous appeal to me.. if I had actually chosen to pursue it as a career, I like to think I would be as strong as you are to do what you do.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
:hi: :yourock:

B-)

[CLANG]

111. Done. K&R

[warm regards]

113. Why not just take their pictures discretely?

[Vickers]

211. Why? If they aren't doing anything wrong, and they aren't being

interfered with, why should they care?

:shrug:

[RagingInMiami]

228. Well maybe I would

If it were actually against the law

[Liberal_in_LA]

114. DONE!

Thank you! Your daily vote for "Photography is Not a Crime" has been entered in the best overall category.

[Lisa0825]

116. I have the BOB awards bookmarked and will vote each day!

You deserve it! n standing up for your rights, you were also standing up for everyone's rights!

[nyc 4 Biden]

117. Done. Good Luck Rage!

I will vote as much as I can. Keep up the good fight!

[dysfunctional press]

119. three strikes and you're out.

maybe they'll let you take pictures of the other lifers.

[EFerrari]

121. The conviction was OVERTURNED. But 'way to support this DUer!

[dysfunctional press]

208. way to recognize sarcasm...

you're not very...bright, are you...?

[Lisa0825]

128. That was a really ignorant reply.

:eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

207. not half as ignorant as someone who can't recognize sarcasm.

:eyes:

[RagingInMiami]

148. One conviction was overturned

And the other has yet to go to trial.

But if you really think someone deserves life in prison for taking photos, then get the fuck out of my country.

[liberation]

153. ... you are actually rocking the boat and doing something

some posters in this site, who love to play pretend and mentally masturbate about issues, may feel a tad uneasy with someone who is more "hands-on." Plus, blaming the victim is much easier and much quicker. Because, you know... if people start to actually stand for something, they too may be forced to stand for something or put their money where their mouth is. And well, that is just not that much fun, is it?

[dysfunctional press]

209. your country...?

i always wondered who held the mortgage. :eyes:

now learn to recognize sarcasm, or get the fuck out of my galaxy.

[RagingInMiami]

238. Get the fuck out of my universe

Just kidding. Seriously, I didn't see the sarcasm.

Sometimes it's hard to pick it up on the internet if you are not familiar with the person.

[Grand Taurean]

122. K AND R! Your are the hero. The cops in the photos are COWARDS

and we would be better off without them on the streets!
Quote that!

[Incitatus]

125. With the amount of police brutality taped in recent years, it's no wonder cops hate being filmed.

It doesn't interfere with them doing their jobs. It interferes with them doing their jobs the way they want to.

[Dystopian]

129. KandR. Done.

peace~

[CLANG]

131. You're No. 1 - Yeahah!

1. Photography is Not a Crime
2. The Phinsider
3. Dos Beer-igos
4. Your Daily Cute
5. Florida Keys Girl
6. Midtown Chica
7. GrillGrrrl - Adventures of a Girl on the Grill
8. Abigail...a collection of poetry
9. Worstpizza.com
10. Mike Loves Beer

[Doremus]

134. Done, done & done! Good luck!!!

[winyanstaz]

135. This has gotten so out of hand....the cops and the justice system are broken...

To be "convicted for "non-violently" resisting arrest ....what the hell does that mean? You were not sub-servant enough?
Arrested for taking a photo in a public place of a public servant? Bull crappy! We are NOT slaves.
That is unconstitutional...there is a right to take photos or to even talk to a cop if you want to.

Why are we putting up with this crap?

Where are the young people out there protesting? Does your grandma have more balls than you do?

Who is going to fight for the civil rights of Americans? Sure isnt the courts anymore.

Insanity has run amok and is in public office. Frickin fascists! It is not coming into being a police state.
It's already here.

[Lisa0825]

141. BACK ON TOP!!! COME ON DU - LET'S KEEP HIM THERE!

Bookmark it and check in each day!!!

:woohoo:

[veganlush]

142. registered and voted in the categories plus over-all. for today..

..will return there tomorrow to do it again----good luck!

edited to add: It looks to me that your blog is in the lead!

[RagingInMiami]

146. You guys just rock!

Seriously. DU is a serious political machine.

Don't forget you can vote at least once a day with the same registration.

We really can't underestimate the second place blog because he has a strong following and they can easily come back.

So let's try to bury them!

Thank you, DU!

[ConsAreLiars]

150. Glad to K&R. You are doing important work. Thank you! (nt)

[dyingnumbers]

152. Photography Organizations

Sign up for a press pass, or buy some sort of license, legitimately identifying you as a media photographer.

[immoderate]

161. You don't need to "buy" a license to take pictures in a free country.

You must have more of a trust for the mainstream media than many of us do around here. Consider that you are suggesting that only corporate employees should be allowed to report the news. Do you realize how crazy it sounds to suggest that a journalist needs to "buy some sort of a license?" Does "freedom of the press" have any meaning for you?

One more time -- you needn't be "legitimate" or "licensed" or "identified" or "media" to take pictures in a Constitutional democracy.

--imm

[Warren Stupidity]

281. so much ignorance all in one response

so, that pesky first amendment only applies to official government sanctioned 'press', is that your contention?

[Agony]

155. kick...done. Thanks for what you do.

[cartach]

157. What the hell is DU allowing this for ?

How is anyone here in a position to support this guy without full knowledge of the facts regarding his current case at least? To me he is just another paparazzi. They usually annoy the hell out of and invade people's privacy and deserve whatever ass-kicking they get. It would seem to me that in this case he probably was interfering with some kind of police operation by getting in the way and exposing himself or others to danger. Police ,with good cause, do not like being distracted while performing their duties,one mistake could have disastrous consequences. And again,this guy wants us to "vote" for him without facts. Not me because in a good many cases photography is a crime, but be sucked in if you must.

[immoderate]

160. A lot of us old timers know Carlos and his work.

I'm wondering if you know what a paparazzi is.

When is photography a crime? Did you notice that his blog is called "Photography is not a crime?" Maybe you should do the public a service and write a blog called, "Oh yeah? Photography is too a crime," with all the true facts about the laws against taking photographs. :eyes:

OTH, you could check out Carlos' blog, and read his journals here and you won't sound so uninformed. (His Cuba pictures were well received here.)

--imm

[pipoman]

174. The facts are and have been available

in this case. Just because you haven't taken the time to look into it doesn't mean they are not available. You must be more comfortable on authoritarian forums which verify the veracity of all posts before they are allowed? Where is that?

Police ,with good cause, do not like being distracted while performing their duties,

Can you understand 'tough shit'? The police, I know, always act with absolute appropriateness. How dare a member of the public look on whilst they perform their public service! Now off to Tiananmen Square with you!

You do understand that you are at Democratic Underground now, not Free Republic, no?

[olegramps]

178. Evidently you don't know you right hand from your left.

You made a left turn when you entered this site, not a right turn into the fascist site that you must have been seeking that believes the Constitution is just another damn piece of paper.

[Odin2005]

185. And here come the defenders of the pigs.

:pukes:

[D23MIURG23]

194. Fail - take your fascist sympathizing elsewhere.

[pipoman]

239. Ok...that right there is just wrong.....eom/lmao

[TommyO]

197. People deserve an ass-kicking for engaging in a legal activity?

Photography isn't a crime. Educate yourself.

[Ignis]

221. Mmm, lots of "concern" there.

[Warren Stupidity]

282. "paparazzi"

by the way, are exercising their first amendment rights to photograph and report on what happens in public.

" Not me because in a good many cases photography is a crime" really? What crime is it exactly when one takes a picture?

[EFerrari]

311. Because DU has access to the law? Because DU doesn't always ASSume

that authority is right?

Because we've read up on this case and have agreed with the Society of Professional Journalists that Carlos is fucking in the right?

Unlike yourself, who apparently doesn't know the law or the case in any way. :)

[Imagevision]

159. Surprised you weren't tased! (bro)

[Nailzberg]

162. delete

delete

[barbtries]

163. i did it

and you're number 1!

:applause:

[KG]

173. wow. the amount of ignorance and obsequiousness in this thread is amazing.

get up off of your knees, citizens. sheesh.

[pipoman]

176. And, may I add?...

the amount of authoritarian kool-aid drinkers 'round here is unbelievable.

[EFerrari]

312. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[olegramps]

180. I voted. Hope I remember to vote tomorrow. Memory is a little fuzzy.

Good Luck.

[Odin2005]

184. The pigs don't like people reccording their evil behavior.

[Flipper999]

191. Done

Good luck!

[D23MIURG23]

192. K, R and Done. Thanks for your efforts; fight those blue shirts. n/t

[TommyO]

195. Done, kicked, and recommended!

:kick:

[TommyO]

202. I've also set up a calendar reminder so I don't forget to vote while the contest is still on.

[BigErnMcCracken]

198. Bah....

This whole thread is going nowhere. It's destined to always be stuck in two camps.

The OP is an axe-grinding jagoff who has admitted he hates cops and is trying to stir up shit.

The people saying he's a jagoff are being painted as sheep who have never been roughed up or abused by an officer of the law.

Is it a bad time to remind everyone that there ARE good cops and bad cops? I'll tell you what, I live in a state where four police officers have been shot in cold blood in the past eight months. Men with children, wives, mothers, who were simply doing their job. I'll take some of the bad cops and try to weed them out properly while giving most of them - GRUDGINGLY - because I'm no fan of the flat top wearing gung-ho cop either, the benefit of the doubt. When I go to work I know that unless I drive off the road on the way home, I'm coming HOME alive to my friends and family. They can't say that every day. No pressure there though.

[pipoman]

240. Enjoy your wine

your pizza is on the way..

[blueamy66]

277. And they are forced to take this job why? and how?

Come on....

[Autonomy]

199. Done. You're currently in first place

over Phinsider, which is I guess the Dolphins' blog.

[gvstn]

203. Kick!

Just voted again today.

Thanks for reminding the police that they are there to stop crime not to interfere with peaceful activities. Standing up for your rights isn't easy and is often a thankless process.

I appreciate that you refuse to be bullied despite the time and cost.

[Christa]

204. K, R and voted. nt

[panzerfaust]

205. This problem is even worse in the UK (but they are further along the road)

Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest Man held in police station for eight hours after taking pictures of Christmas celebrations in Accrington...

'You're filming for fun? I don't believe you' Police community support officers (PCSOs) stopped Italian student Simona Bonomo under anti-terrorism legislation for filming buildings in London. Moments later, she was arrested by other officers, held in a police cell and fined. She talks Paul Lewis through the footage she recorded of her conversation with the PCSOs ...

A few photographs add up to a minor terror alert. Paul Lewis takes his camera to a London landmark and minutes later police officers are on their way to stop and search him under anti-terrorism laws ...

And, the best link last:

The stories of photographers being prevented from taking pictures under terror legislation are numerous. There was the Austrian tourist who admired a London bus station, a Kent photographer who snapped Mick's Plaice fish bar in Chatham and was questioned because he was deemed to be suspiciously tall, the man who took a picture of St Paul's Cathedral, the BBC photographer who shoots background scenes for the Top Gear programme, and the man who stood on a rail bridge and photographed trains.

The abuse of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an established part of British life and is affecting the work of professional photographers and journalists, as well as the pleasure of amateurs. It is an outrageous infringement of an elementary liberty and it is something that we all should be concerned about, because this particular battle has symbolic significance...

[Locrian]

206. kick!

K&R - I'll sign up and vote as well.

Keep up the good work.

[dajoki]

210. Done and Thank You!!

K&R

[Heidi]

212. Ignore the badge sniffers, RIM.

You're a credible journalist, you know the law pertaining to photojournalism and you've demonstrated respect for it. There's no good reason any law enforcement officer would object to you photographing them--from a reasonable distance--doing the jobs we're paying them to do.

Recommended.

:kick:

[EFerrari]

231. What Heidi said.

:kick:

[Captain Hilts]

219. It's to protect their families as much as anything. nt

[me b zola]

223. Done

Thank you for doing what you do. :thumbsup:

[D23MIURG23]

226. Kick!

[tpsbmam]

232. You're #1 now! Keep voting, everyone.....

Done. Too late to R but definitely giving you the votes and a :kick:

Great blog & what a war! Thanks for hanging tough for all of us -- we all win with every battle you win.

:toast:

[Scurrilous]

234. Kick

:kick:

[Lisa0825]

237. kick

:kick:

[Liberal_in_LA]

242. kick

[Dystopian]

245. Vote kick.

peace~

[intheflow]

246. Keep voting, Kids! the blog is #1 now!

WTG, Raging! :headbang:

[EFerrari]

248. Done, again.

Go, Carlos! :yourock:

[wildbilln864]

249. and a kick....

too late to r. Sorry. :hi:

[RagingInMiami]

250. Two more days of voting left!

If you've already voted, vote again because the contest allows you to vote once a day.

That's the only way I'm going to win this contest. If people vote over and over. I know it's stupid, but that's how it's set up.

The sports blog that is in second place is going to make a serious attempt at regaining the lead in the next two days, so I'm really counting on you guys!

[gvstn]

251. Kick and Done!

[eomer]

252. Done again (and again)

And a kick.

[Scurrilous]

253. I voted again this morning.

:thumbsup:

[Dystopian]

254. Today's vote

Good luck!


peace~

[Jackpine Radical]

255. You're #1 today.

I popped you another vote this AM.

[Lisa0825]

257. kick

:kick:

[Supply Side Jesus]

258. As a Deputy Sheriff

I welcome your video taping. It only serves to protect me. I carry a camera Pen, and my patrol mic on any time I have citizen contact. It is great for recording exciting utterances and getting confessions without having to ask a single question. Also, great evidence when someone tries to files a false report against me. Technology works for everyone.

I hope you also get to record when we give death notifications. Nothing like a stranger in your arms after you just told them their child committed suicide. Or when a LEO tries to convince a battered victim to assist with prosecution against a spouse. Or trying to convince someone with mental issues that no one is outside their window at 3am. I hope you get to capture the obscene to the absurd in the daily routines of a LEO. I hope you get all aspects of what a Law Enforcement Officer does on video.

[intheflow]

259. RagingInMiami shoots still photography, not video.

But it's nice to hear from an officer supportive of his work. You are absolutely right about media working for everyone. If he took a shot that looked like senseless police brutality, the photograph might also reveal what he, as an eye witness, missed, i.e., a concealed weapon in a waistband, or a bloodied victim lying in shadow.

FWIW, I don't think Raging has anything against law enforcement per se, but he does live in an area that has a history of police misconduct and so he has taken to shooting it when he sees it. But if he were to witness an officer comforting someone who'd just lost a loved one, for instance, I'm sure he would attempt to capture that pathos as well. From a respectable distance, as his other photos have been.

[EFerrari]

263. I appreciate the difficulty of the sad tasks you describe.

And, respectfully, point out, they are not the province of LEOs but of communities. I've done each one of them and suspect that most people have done one or more.

What I have never done with four of my colleagues is tackle someone and pound their head on the pavement for no better reason than because we could.

[Supply Side Jesus]

296. Never done that either

Never saw the point of it. It's criminal and its wrong. I've been in several knockout drag out fights when a perp decides to take a swing, but why brutalize someone cuz he showed contempt of cop?! It's so detrimental on all levels. You can forget him ever cooperating with you on any investigations in the future. And hope he just doesn't decide to shoot the next cop the next time he has contact with one!

[EFerrari]

299. Like any organization, imho it's about leadership.

I've lived in three different precincts in San Francisco and they were all really different.

Of course individual cops are different but at the level of cop culture, the guys who do the Haight, who work Ingleside and who work the Sunset districts might as well be in different departments because the way they do things are not the same. Ingleside tended to thuggery, Parkside cops who work the Haight are hip but a little on the hassled side from dealing with high density AND tourists, Taraval Sta seems to be the most community oriented. That's not fair to any single cop who works out of those offices but it's a pretty fair description of those stations on the whole and maybe of how each one gets its tone from leadership.

[msanthrope]

271. I wish more cops were like you. n/t

[Supply Side Jesus]

297. There is a lot of us out there

Unfortunately the douche bag exposures tend to skew it all to hell.
Thank you msanthrope, I always enjoy your posts.

[EFerrari]

300. I'm not at home right now but I'd go on teevee for the guys who work my neighborhood.

They probably have their share of DBs but I've never seen one of them in all these years. On the contrary, I've seen more than one go out of his/her way to get the best outcome for the neighborhood even if it meant taking a little bit more trouble. Like the time a bi-polar woman on our block started basically assaulting people near her building and at the grocery store next door. We called it in and tried to lay out the mental health part. The response was great, they came out with a psychologist and she wound up in the hospital, not in the jail -- which is the usual in this town. It was a win for that lady, win for the neighborhood and win for the LEOs.

Go, Taraval Station!

[tallahasseedem]

276. +1

Thank you for all that you do. Take care! :)

[Hutzpa]

260. This is where Justice

failed it populace.

Very sad.

[Bjorn Against]

261. Kick

[EFerrari]

262. Still need votes today through Monday.

:kick:

[Lisa0825]

264. It's after midnight, so I just entered my Sunday votes! nt

[EFerrari]

266. Yay, Lisa!

:hi:

[Dystopian]

265. Today's vote kick.

Seems like it was only today that I voted earlier....


peace~

[gvstn]

267. One more day...

Voting for the 2010 BOB Awards begins Feb. 15 at 10 am and ends on Monday, March 1 at 10 am.

Don't forget to vote again on Monday! Early a.m.!

Thanks again to Carlos/OP for standing up for our rights when it is often difficult to do so. Photography in public spaces is not a crime!

[EFerrari]

268. Welcome to DU, gvstn.

:)

[gvstn]

269. Thanks for the welcome! :)

I want to add to this thread to remind people that although photography is not a crime, arresting someone for photographing when you know it is not a crime should be criminal. It is abuse of power, intimidation and harassment.

It is a crime just the same as someone walking up and strong-arm robbing the man of his camera. It disturbs the peace and should be prosecuted not just nullified in court (after much inconvenience and expense to the innocent citizen).

Taking a picture of a cop on duty may not seem like something to make a fuss over but as your father used to say, "It is the principle of the thing". It is worth the fight. Police are supposed to be professionals and enforce the law and protect the peace not detain citizens for doing things for which they don't personally appreciate the value.

If I were to walk around in a public place in my flannel pajamas it might seem strange. An officer could inquire about my well being because it disturbed other people's sensibilities. However, he does not have a right to tell me to dress "normally" because others don't like my attire or arrest me because I refuse.

A good cop responding to a complaint would ascertain that I am mentally competent and recognize that he cannot control my attire and go on about his day. A bad cop would harass or intimidate or arrest me if I did not go home and change. Until the police recognize that they do not have some special power to bend people's wills to their liking it is critical to point out their abuses. However small they may be.

[Lisa0825]

272. PLEASE BE SURE TO VOTE TODAY AND TOMORROW MORNING!

You can bet the other bloggers will be rallying their fans to vote!!!

[Jackpine Radical]

275. Gave you another vote. You're still ahead.

Can't rec it again (too late anyway), but

Kicque :kick:

[RagingInMiami]

278. Less than 24 hours left of voting

And Photography is Not a Crime still remains in first place!

If you've already voted, remember you can vote once a day.

Thank you for all the support!

[EFerrari]

283. Kick.

[Lisa0825]

284. kick

:kick:

[EFerrari]

286. Home stretch!

:kick:

[Lisa0825]

287. IT'S MIDNIGHT ON THE EAST COAST!!! VOTE!!!!!!

:woohoo:

[gvstn]

288. Just a few hours left. Get your last vote in!

[EFerrari]

289. Kick

[TommyO]

290. Kickity-kick, kick, kick!

If you haven't done so already, vote.

[Agony]

291. Done x3

[Cetacea]

293. Proof that he was at a considerable distance

Notice the compression blur behind the police officers. This kind of compression only occurs with a telephoto lens. To fit an entire body into a frame and still get that compression effect you's have to be quite a good distance away, and certainly beyond being able to "shoving a camera in someones face".
In addition, it appears that he cropped the photo to make them appear closer for the viewer, again indicative of having been far away from the officers.

[Bjorn Against]

295. Kick - please vote you only have a short time left

The blog is down to second now, please get out there and vote to bring it back up to first before time runs out.

[gvstn]

298. Final results on March 03...

Hmmm, It sounds like the pizza blog jumped up to first place and PINAC was second place right around vote closing time.
We'll have to wait a few days to get official result.

Holy Cow, that Worst Pizza went from

3rd overall to 1st overall in the span of 2 hours…

Last hour to vote! Everyone jump in one last time.


by Fr8Train on Mar 1, 2010 9:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

cmon, guys, 3rd overall

lets go out and vote!!!

by finzrule on Mar 1, 2010 9:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

From: Phinsider http://www.thephinsider.com/2010/2/27/1327277/final-push-voting-for-bob-awards#comments

[EFerrari]

301. Let's keep this kicked (rather than archived) so we can see results.

Carlos already wins in my book, no matter what these people decide.

:kick:

[Lisa0825]

302. kick

:kick:

[Lisa0825]

303. kick

[gvstn]

304. kick for pending results...

[gvstn]

305. Congratulations! Carlos.

PINAC won best Overall blog. http://interactive.sun-sentinel.com/community/ssblogcontest/index-win.php

[EFerrari]

306. WHOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO!

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

Omg, how great is this! :party:

Thanks gvstn! :hi:

[Lisa0825]

307. WOOHOOOO!!!!!

Congrats Carlos!!!! You deserve it!

[Scurrilous]

308. Congrats!

:thumbsup:

[lefty2000]

309. Howard Zinn said:

They only have power because we obey them.

[EFerrari]

310. Welcome to DU, lefty2000.

Howard was right. :)

[RagingInMiami]

313. Thanks, DU

I never would have done it without you.

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/03/04/pinac-wins-best-overall-blog-in-south-florida/

[EFerrari]

314. More wellwishers here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7838793