Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity

Reply
Thread Tools

Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity

 
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
activity on his cellphone:
http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
police have different stories (DUH!).

I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
picture of police activity in plain sight.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Celcius
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
Bill Funk wrote:
> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
> activity on his cellphone:
> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
> Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
> the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
> Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
> exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
> exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
> police have different stories (DUH!).
>
> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
> picture of police activity in plain sight.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"


Bill,
Big Brother is watching...
Orwell might have been right after all.
Take care,
Marcel

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
Bill Funk wrote:

> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
> activity on his cellphone:
> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
> Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
> the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
> Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
> exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
> exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law)


This assumes that the reporter could actually identify the law--the
Pennsylvania statutes are voluminous and finding things in them quickly
requires special expertise. Further, it might be a city or local
ordinance, so there's actually a good deal of research involved to do this,
more than can reasonably be accomplished before deadline for any but
possibly the largest news organizations.

> ; the "witness"
> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
> police have different stories (DUH!).
>
> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
> picture of police activity in plain sight.


I suspect that the officer exceeded his authority. I also expect that since
this has gotten national publicity something will be done about it.

As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is
that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it
stand is another story.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tom Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
It's scare tactics, and intimidation. Too many cops have been caught in
compromising, and embarrassing moments.

Tom


"Bill Funk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
> activity on his cellphone:
> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
> Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
> the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
> Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
> exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
> exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
> police have different stories (DUH!).
>
> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
> picture of police activity in plain sight.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:59:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is
>that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it
>stand is another story.


It's far more complicated than that.
Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider what his
vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as passing the bill is
concerned.
I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out, the
excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
HEMI - Powered
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
Today, Celcius made these interesting comments ...

> Bill Funk wrote:
>> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of
>> police activity on his cellphone:
>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Read the story;
>> several things don't make sense, not least of which is the
>> claim that no supervisor was on duty. Of course, there are
>> two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. There
>> is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it exists (a
>> competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
>> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the
>> man and the police have different stories (DUH!).
>>
>> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from
>> taking a picture of police activity in plain sight.


> Big Brother is watching...
> Orwell might have been right after all.
> Take care,


"Big Brother" has been watching since FISA was updated twice
since 9/11, the 1947 NSA was updated at least twice since, all
Federal intelligence and law enforcement activities were
consolidated under Homeland Security, along with incorrectly
bundling FEMA in, and finally, the Bill of Rights was abrogated,
severely abridged, and the 4th Amendment basically destroyed by
the Patriot Act, which turns out to be an acronym.

Whether any of us agree with or disagree with the Bush
Administration's stance on all of this, including the highly
controversial "wire tapping" of American phone calls and the
accusation that the NY Times violated the NSA by leaking the
story about the USA monitoring foreign money transfers, it is
quite clear that today's post-9/11 world is very different than
it was prior to about 9:00AM on September 11, 2001.

Over in alt.binaries.pictures.rail there was a very long, very
contentious thread about whether a private company can or cannot
confiscate picture you take of their rail yard from a public
ridge, and the discussion drifted into whether photography on
private property is or is not a protected "right". Well, not
being a Constitutional law attorney, I am an engineer, I do not
know the answer to these knotty questions of our time.

But, I do know this: If you are accosted for doing something with
a camera of /any/ sort, cell phone, P & S, or sophisticated DSLR
where a legitimate law enforcment officer takes issue or even if
a private security guard take issue, your best course of action
is to immediately park your ego, stand down, get polite and very
contrite, and try to calm down the person accosting you. Absent
so really sincere humility, some amount of hassle will definitely
come your way, all the way to a police arrest for anything as
small as disturbing the peace, misdemeanor photography of a
police investigation, to felony obstruction of justice or a
believed attempt to contribute to the crime being investigated,
planning of a future crime, or the worst of all, the planning or
execution of a real or perceived terrorist attack.

The latter is so ill-defined that it is difficult right now to
even talk about what does or does not constitute an "attack" by a
common citizen taking a picture with their cell phone camera or
saying something seemingly innocuos like "gee, here's a good
example of police brutality in progress!". And, I wouldn't advise
ya to yell "Big Brother!" if you are in a similar situation.

So, as to whether it is or is not against the law to take
pictures of anything, including a police action, only a qualified
attorney can answer that, but likely, it will become a matter for
state or federal courts to decide and may wind its way through
the appellate court system all the way to the Supreme Court,
which really makes me wonder where the Hell the ACLU has been
during all of this over the last 4-5 years ...

--
HP, aka Jerry

Member, Chrysler Employee Motorsport Association (CEMA)
http://www.cemaclub.org/default.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
HEMI - Powered
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
Today, Bill Funk made these interesting comments ...

>>As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to
>>happen is that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now,
>>whether the courts let it stand is another story.

>
> It's far more complicated than that.
> Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider
> what his vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as
> passing the bill is concerned.
> I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out,
> the excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd.


Yeas and Nays in two Houses of Congress signify passage or defeat
of a /bill/, not a law. It doesn't become a law until the
executive signs it, whether a state governor or the president.
But, you are entirely correct in that no one really knows what
the new law does or does not say, exactly how it is applied and
enforced, and whether it is constitutional or not until at least
one case comes before a state or federal court. And, under the
American justice system, a lower court ruling or even jury trial
decision does not set a precedent. That takes a decision at least
at the appellate court level or a state or Federal Supreme Court.

And, laws can be challenged in the general case, individually,
through certified classes, as in class-action suits, or when one
side or the other in some controversy decide to go to court, of
which being arrested is only one way.

As to whether a police officer or someone higher in the police
command structure did or did not exceed their authority would
depend highly - and specifically - on what statute(s) were cited
by the arresting office, the evidence they used, the degree of
probably cause, and any potential conflicts between city,
country, state, and Federal law, not to mention the various
aspects of state and Federal constitutional law and the
implementable portions of things like the Patriot Act.

Now, back to the legislators. In a republic, which is what the
United States is, it is /not/ a democracy, a legislator is not at
all bound by his/her constutents to vote the way the people want
or even the way the candidate said they would whilst running for
office. Voters then have only two recourses: attempt to remove
the legislator under appropriate law or congressional rules, or
vote their ass out of office next election. In some cases, a
recall election may be applicable, which is how Gov. Gray lost
his job in Kalyfornia and Arnold Schwazenneger was elected a
couple years ago.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Member, Chrysler Employee Motorsport Association (CEMA)
http://www.cemaclub.org/default.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
Tom Williams <NeedToKnow?@askme.com> wrote:
>It's scare tactics, and intimidation. Too many cops have been caught in
>compromising, and embarrassing moments.


Yeah, but it could also be more of the Homeland Security
nonsense we've seen in recent years. The law in question
(if it exists) might be designed to keep anti-terrorism
activity secret.

While that is laudable, I want my rights back.

---- Paul J. Gans
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tom Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006

"Paul J Gans" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eaj1h2$1k6$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tom Williams <NeedToKnow?@askme.com> wrote:
>>It's scare tactics, and intimidation. Too many cops have been caught in
>>compromising, and embarrassing moments.

>
> Yeah, but it could also be more of the Homeland Security
> nonsense we've seen in recent years. The law in question
> (if it exists) might be designed to keep anti-terrorism
> activity secret.
>
> While that is laudable, I want my rights back.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans


I've only read about situations where people claim it's illegal to take
pictures of this, or that. I haven't seen any laws that clearly spell that
out, here in the U.S. As far as I know, taking pictures in public places is
not against the law. Especially while standing on ones own property!

Does any one have any links to such laws?

Tom


 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
Bill Funk wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:59:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is
>>that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it
>>stand is another story.

>
> It's far more complicated than that.
> Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider what his
> vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as passing the bill is
> concerned.


How does that make it "more complicated" than a majority vote?

> I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out, the
> excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Man who threw snowball at police faces second court hearing richard Computer Support 1 01-04-2011 09:42 PM
Re: Man who threw snowball at police faces second court hearing WeReo_BoY Computer Support 2 01-04-2011 03:39 PM
New releases: The Man With the Golden Arm, Cinderella Man & Dead & Buried; Updated complete downloadable R1 DVD DB & info lists Doug MacLean DVD Video 0 08-16-2005 05:35 AM
Anyone ever arrested for taking a photo in the U.S.? JohnCM Digital Photography 24 06-28-2004 07:22 PM
conflict between man perlipc and man perlfunc !? Jaap Karssenberg Perl Misc 0 01-09-2004 11:39 PM



Advertisments