It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

LAPD Unlawfully Detains Photographer

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


They have just as much right to deny it as the next man, the police just have the power to arrest you should you antagonize them.

We have been over this. Filming cops is perfectly legal, however if you do it against their wishes you are being a jerk and the cops will arrest you for whatever they want. The fact is just tailing cops with a camera is an attempt to antagonize them nothing more. Being loud annoying and rude while taking photographs of people against their wishes is disorderly conduct and not a false "bust all" charge. The cops are people and have rights too, photographers have the right to take pictures but when you start to photograph people against their wishes that is harassment and you do not have the right to do that.


Yes exactly. Just as much right as the next man on public that means no right. Of course cops can arrest you and put fake charges on you put they will release you and drop the charges and then get sued. Happens all the time.
If you film cops against their wishes they may see you as a jerk and even feel harrassed. They dont have any legal authority to stop you from doing that however. The fact of the matter is that I've never seen anyone who is purposly antagonizing cops with a camera. I've seen hundreds of cases where people who know their rights and laws are protecting themselves against cops the only way possible through video. They have not only the right but also the duty to make sure that the cops know they're being watched since they've shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted. If you're being rude and loud then it's not the filming / photographing that gets you arrested. Taking someone's picture afaik has never ever been considered harrasment except by those whose pictures were taken. If you have a court case that upheld such a charge feel free to show me. Just because someone feels harrassed doesn't mean that it is so anyway.



I think this is the real problem, i think you are affraid of police enforcing laws on you that do not exist and a bad understanding of what real laws are. Contempt of cop and disobeying a lawful order...
I highly suggest you read up on the law from a real source and not whatever you are currently getting your info from. It is really hard to see your point of view when you keep throwing things in that are made up by you or someone else, it just adds confusion. So take the time to read up on actual law or i will charge you with spreading retardation in the third degree. Since the law is so heavily influenced by our rights i have no idea how you can have a good conceptual undeerstanding of your rights when you clearly show a child's level of understanding the law and rights.


You have a point here, my terminology is lacking. My native language isn't english so those terms might lose something in translation. Feel free to correct those terms thought.



No we do not have the right to privacy in public but we do have the right to walk the streets while not being harassed by people with cameras that wish to film us against our wishes.


That's just it. While on public streets you don't have right not to be 'harrassed' just because you wish so.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


That doesn't apply. It's a law that quarantees your right to privacy in your home or in a private venue where you have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Police officers do not "voluntarily give up rights", and while their actions are a matter of public record, this public record is dictated by appropriate protocol, such as an records the police officer has made in the course of a day, but does not demand that police officer surrender his right to privacy simply because he is a public servant.

As to my personal bias, that lies with inalienable rights, which belong to all people at all times, if you feel justified in dismissing such a stance as personal bias, this say's far more about your character than it does mine.

Further your arguments lack logic at every turn. The argument that ATM's photograph people, is public knowledge, and people have an option of avoiding being photographed by those camera's simply by not placing themselves in the scope of those camera's. The police officer did not have this option with the intrusion of the photographer, but he certainly had the option of asserting his inalienable right to privacy, of which he did. Your argument about quitting the army is a matter of contract law, and once one agrees to the terms of a contract they are bound by those terms.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The cop's right! Basic knowledge of the law in Fed- er-ral, says you can not
record someone without their knowledge or against their will.

Also another law must be upheld here as well. The one that say's if you go out and look for trouble, you are sure to find it.

Stupid if you ask me.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

The cop's right! Basic knowledge of the law in Fed- er-ral, says you can not
record someone without their knowledge or against their will.

Also another law must be upheld here as well. The one that say's if you go out and look for trouble, you are sure to find it.



Yeah show me that law. I challenge you. To quote you...



Stupid if you ask me.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Well this is bit of a red herring as we are talking about something that happened in LA and not canada. Im sorry if i sound like a jerk but that is the way it is. If you want to talk about photo law in canada im sure you can start a thread about it.
As far as the ATM machine thing it is a bit different. A camera on an ATM is set up on private property and is not invading anyone's privacy. The fact that there are cameras on ATMs is common knowledge. And if one wishes to not be filmed he can avoid the ATM and stay off of private properties that use security cameras.
However as discussed ad nauseam there is a difference between taking photographs in a public area and following someone photographing them against their verbally stated wishes.



First off, your only choosing certain aspects of the whole concept. Throwing "common knowledge" in simply isn't a valid point. A person following you around with a camera becomes by its very nature "common knowledge".
There are currently hundreds of down looking optical satellites. It is "common knowledge' they exist, but not common as to how effective they are. Can you as a citizen ask the military not to film you? I thought not.

In California, the photography laws have been proven time and time again, by the paparazzi. It is the right of anyone to film as long as they're on public property. So your argument is not valid. If anyone were able to simply ask and not be photographed, Hollywood would be a much different place.

I don't think you sound like a jerk, I think you sound like a police shill. We have seen a large number of barely literate police enthusiasts join as of late to sing the praises of the police that have been PROVEN to abuse peoples rights, plant drugs, weapons or anything else that might make a case. In every instance it is chimed in by the police shills that it's one bad apple, or the 'perp' had it coming.

Until we see actual police, turn in their "brothers in blue" for abusing the rights of the citizens, or for standing by watching while their "brother" does it, it is absolutely imperative that the public be able to film the police.

Secondly, spell check is your friend. Your points are diminished when rife with typo's. Just saying.

..Ex



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 





That doesn't apply. It's a law that quarantees your right to privacy in your home or in a private venue where you have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.


You are attempting to frame the law as a "civil right" granted by legislation rather than the all ready acknowledged inalienable rights that belong to all people. The law most certainly does apply, particularly to my argument, which for the fourth time I repeat; the police officer did not in any way violate the photographers rights. That police officer had every right to assert his belief in a right of privacy which is precisely what he did, and is most certainly what I would do if you were intruding upon my "reasonable expectation of privacy" regardless of the setting.

You may continue to assert your right of freedom of press, but the issue will become a matter of civil tort for a jury to decide. Try dismissing my right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a court of law in front of jury when at best all you can argue is the public's right to know, and given I am not a public figure, nor any person who has solicited a public persona, it is doubtful your argument would stand.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Police officers do not "voluntarily give up rights",

Your argument about quitting the army is a matter of contract law, and once one agrees to the terms of a contract they are bound by those terms.



Did you even read your post before you sent it?

Read the above..a couple of times.

Gawd

..Ex



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Police officers do not voluntarily give up rights simply because they became police officers, and their inalienable rights are as valid as the next persons. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Every person has the right to contract, that is an inalienable right. Joining the army is a contract, and in The U.S. even under any draft, that draft is only applicable to those people who actually registered for the draft, which is in effect, a contract. If a person signs this contract, they are agreeing to the terms of that contract and the party who has contracted with them has a reasonable expectation of the terms of that contract being fulfilled. Perhaps in your world you would like it where rights are merely arbitrary things that can be granted and taken away upon the whims of others, but in reality this is just not the case.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You were the one who brought up that law. I merely pointed out that it doesn't apply.
Yes indeed rights that belong to all people. One of which happens to be the right to take pictures / video on public. Police officers own personal belief in his rights on public doesn't apply what applies is the law.
I would be more than happy to dismiss your claim of reasonable right to privacy on public if I'd have a change. I'm 100% sure that it would stand just fine.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Police officers do not voluntarily give up rights simply because they became police officers, and their inalienable rights are as valid as the next persons. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Every person has the right to contract, that is an inalienable right. Joining the army is a contract,



Here you explain it quite well. Joining the Army, is a contract. joining the police..is also a contract. Part of that contract is that you will accept certain forfeiture of your personal freedoms in order to accept said position. there are hundreds of examples I could cite, from overtime pay to personal use of vehicles...

I'm not against anyone having or keeping their rights, I'm against the Stalinist nature of the police force and the loss of the rights on a whim by those police that would do so.

Now since you mentioned "My" world, in My world the police don't beat hookers, tase grandma, plant drugs and weapons, steal at every opportunity and then laugh as they lie in court. Maybe some accountability of the police services would be really nice for a change. If that accountability comes from the end of a lens, then it is a small price to pay.

..Ex



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


And again, assuming your dismissal of my right in a public setting, was a violation of my reasonable right to expectation of privacy, I would be more than happy to sue you for this intrusion and let a jury decide the matter. Under those circumstances, and given there is a growing distaste for "paparazzi", I am 100% sure I could convince a jury you intruded upon my right of reasonable expectation to privacy.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Feel free to join the club then. You could sue me to high heavens but you'd never get a conviction. Ever. Just because you think you would means nothing. You cannot assert your right to privacy in public however you can choose to not to be in public if it bothers you that much.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 





joining the police..is also a contract. Part of that contract is that you will accept certain forfeiture of your personal freedoms in order to accept said position.


You are going to have to show me that contract in order for it to be accepted as a fact. This thread is about a police officer in the state of California, do you think you can supply the specific contract he signed in order to support your argument?

You can make your claims about being in support of inalienable rights all you want, the evidence suggest otherwise, and you continue to bring in non relevant issues to deflect your assertions that a police officer forfeits inalienable rights by becoming one. When I began posting in this thread I was quick to point out that I am hard on police officers, and many of my posts will attest to this, but I do not ever offer up sacrifice of a persons inalienable rights as justifiable in some twisted argument for the greater good. The ends do not justify the means, and in the end, whatever the outcome, it was because of the means.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Feel free to join the club then. You could sue me to high heavens but you'd never get a conviction. Ever. Just because you think you would means nothing. You cannot assert your right to privacy in public however you can choose to not to be in public if it bothers you that much.


This remark only underscores your woeful and profound misunderstanding of the law, and in spite of the fact that I have several times made clear that this issue is a matter of civil tort. A conviction, in this context, would be a matter of criminal law. I most certainly can assert my right to privacy in public, and I do not have to avoid being in public in order to assert that right.

A police officer cannot detain me simply because I am in public, and I am a private person while in public and not subject to any police officers jurisdiction as long as I am operating within the bounds of the law, to offer just one example of my right to reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, if I am in a park with my children, and you are intruding upon my children rights by frightening them with your in their face photography, I will most certainly rely on mine and their right to reasonable expectation of privacy to insist you stop this intrusion, and in that instance, if you refuse, it is arguable that it has gone beyond civil tort and into a criminal matter.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Ok, I'll bite. Show me then the court cases where this right to privacy has been upheld on public. Should be simple right?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Ok, I'll bite. Show me then the court cases where this right to privacy has been upheld on public. Should be simple right?


I have all ready supplied one earlier; Shulman v. Group W Productions, 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1998). Why don't you show me the court cases that uphold a photographers right to frighten little children by indiscriminately intruding upon their personal space chasing them around with a camera, simply because they are in a public park.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 




If you film cops against their wishes they may see you as a jerk and even feel harrassed. They dont have any legal authority to stop you from doing that however.


Yes they do have the right to stop you. Harassment is against the law and so is disorderly conduct.



The fact of the matter is that I've never seen anyone who is purposly antagonizing cops with a camera. I've seen hundreds of cases where people who know their rights and laws are protecting themselves against cops the only way possible through video.

So the cops would have arrested this guy anyway if he was not filming them? This guy has a youtube channel which is devoted to starting problems with police.



Taking someone's picture afaik has never ever been considered harrasment except by those whose pictures were taken. If you have a court case that upheld such a charge feel free to show me. Just because someone feels harrassed doesn't mean that it is so anyway.


www.wvgazette.com...

www.woai.com...

Photographers get arrested all the time for being jerks. Basically it is the adult version of waving your hands infront of somebodys face while saying im not touching you.



That's just it. While on public streets you don't have right not to be 'harrassed' just because you wish so.


Yes everyone has the right not to be harassed which is exactly why there are laws against it. You dont believe me? Go near a school and take pictures of the children playing and see what happens.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 




First off, your only choosing certain aspects of the whole concept. Throwing "common knowledge" in simply isn't a valid point. A person following you around with a camera becomes by its very nature "common knowledge".


Yes it is a valid point, you can not walk infront of the ATM if you choose because you know there is a camera there. You can walk away and the ATM will not follow you.
Just like it is common knowledge that cars drive fast on the freeway and not in the mall. If i walk onto the freeway and get hit by a car that is my choice and i am to blame. If I am walking in the mall and i get hit by a car i had no choice in the matter and it is wrong.



In California, the photography laws have been proven time and time again, by the paparazzi. It is the right of anyone to film as long as they're on public property. So your argument is not valid. If anyone were able to simply ask and not be photographed, Hollywood would be a much different place.

Those paparazzi guys get arrested all the time actors even get restraining orders on the bad ones.
www.people.com...
www.smh.com.au...


I don't think you sound like a jerk, I think you sound like a police shill. We have seen a large number of barely literate police enthusiasts join as of late to sing the praises of the police that have been PROVEN to abuse peoples rights, plant drugs, weapons or anything else that might make a case. In every instance it is chimed in by the police shills that it's one bad apple, or the 'perp' had it coming.

Until we see actual police, turn in their "brothers in blue" for abusing the rights of the citizens, or for standing by watching while their "brother" does it, it is absolutely imperative that the public be able to film the police.

Secondly, spell check is your friend. Your points are diminished when rife with typo's. Just saying


Ahhh the true mark of ignorance. Having nothing else to really say you resort to spelling and ad hominem attacks.

I do not agree with you so therefore i am an uneducated police shill. Funny how i was having a civil conversation with someone who speaks english as a second language and i never felt the need to name call or bring up his spelling abilities.
edit to add:
Nevermind i found out you can do whatever you want in canada



[edit on 22-6-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Not sure if people are aware of the following.

The difference between Western Social Control and nations within the Euro Zone is simply that the Euro Zone has a far more inflammable outcome of such an outcome.

As far as Western Social Control, its more or less a docile attitude towards and acceptance without question. Given that we/them/us do not physically border with nations who have a rich cultural level in comparison does make things (in lames terms) a whole lot easier to achieve what we choose. Obvious point is, you are a product of your environment.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Police officers do not voluntarily give up rights simply because they became police officers, and their inalienable rights are as valid as the next persons. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Every person has the right to contract, that is an inalienable right. Joining the army is a contract, and in The U.S. even under any draft, that draft is only applicable to those people who actually registered for the draft, which is in effect, a contract. If a person signs this contract, they are agreeing to the terms of that contract and the party who has contracted with them has a reasonable expectation of the terms of that contract being fulfilled. Perhaps in your world you would like it where rights are merely arbitrary things that can be granted and taken away upon the whims of others, but in reality this is just not the case.




I will say this as plainly as possible: The cops DO give up their righrts, certqain ones, when they go to work and are in PUBLIC. They have ZERO expectation of privacy when in the public domain. Simple.

Rights are NOT ' inalienable'..none of them. They are all conditional.

Cops who claim that they have privacy rights when in public have No leg to stand on, legally. Neither do we civilians. You cannot stand on a street corner talking in a loud voice to a friend and expect everyone within earshot to move away so you can have ' privacy'. Nonsense.

Cops who expect privacy can take themselves indoors or get in a cop car and roll the windows up...they CANNOT simply claim privacy and stop us from recording them.

If cops were allowed to become a special protected class, and they already are to some degree, they would abuse this like they always abuse limits to their power.

Cops can record us, voice and video, and do so all the time. By what measure then can they deny us this right? They cannot!! These cases will be thrwon out and as soon as a Federal judge gets a case it will stop.

I guess SOME of you people want cops to have MORE rights than the rest of us...why i cannot imagine..but placing them on a pedastel and stopping cityizens from documenting their actions is dangerous, to all of us.

Of COURSE cop want to be able to get away with their abuses...that is why they hate being filmed...they hate the idea of their lies and illegal actions coming back to haunt them....as long as it is their word againt ours, a cop knows that the scumbag prosecutors and most judges will look the other way and accept their lies even though most know that cops are notorious liars and perjurers.

Cops have such a horrendous track record of rights abuses that they require constant monitoring to keep them from taking all of our rights away...this is but one area...they will go kicking and screaming and insisting that they are better than us...that they have ' privacy ' rights that for some reason do not apply to non-cops...the nerve!! The very gaul of a cop to want MORE rights than us!!

It sickens the civilized mind to think of letting cops, of all people, get away with stopping us from insuring they do not violate others rights. If they can stop a picture or audio tape from being taken, they can abuse, lie, murder and perjure as much as they want to and no one can prove it...it is like a Nazi thugs dream..eliminate all proof of their crimes, by stopping film and audio of police.

Anyone who supports taking our rights away while giving them only to cops is not very concerned with liberty....never trust a cop, ever.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join