Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers Within Departmental Policy

Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers Within Departmental Policy

www.lbpost.com

Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures “with no apparent esthetic value” is within Long Beach Police Department policy....“If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery,” says McDonnell, “it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual.”...

[McDonnell says officers] will generally approach photographers not engaging in “regular tourist behavior."

(visit the link for the full news article)

This was just passed along to me and I think it deserves ATS attention.

Now, it seems, if you are in Long Beach, the police have not the right but the DUTY to stop you if you are taking a photograph of something with "no aesthetic value." The officers are now policing the art world?

I also like the bit a bout "regular tourist behavior." I'm glad the police are now seeking out and approaching people based on whether or not they are acting like tourists. What's next? Ticketing people for not consuming enough? Stay classy, Long Beach.

Is this a bad Sci Fi novel or the United States?

www.lbpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Just a policy.

Imagine some clerk at a convenience store cuffing and detaining you because of store "policy."

Only the police can kidnap you, harass you, lock you away for a weekend, and even beat you because of "policy."

Gotta love it.

Would they prefer we take pictures openly or covertly?

Pick one.

As an amateur photographer, I would love the opportunity to challenge them on this. I take pictures of things that I feel represent the story I am trying to tell with my pictures. Whether that involves a refinery or a nuke plant is up to me, not them. Just harass me one time, please! You will make me a wealthy man!

Some of the best photographs ever taken have ZERO aesthetic value. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE PHOTOGRAPHING THEM!!!!!

A good photographer can make a good picture out of anything.

If anything, taking a picture of a Long Beach police officer would have less aesthetic value than a pile of steaming dog poo!

....and who determines what has aesthetic value anyways???

"One man's junk, is another man's treasure"

Best thing to do, have the camera send your pictures you take over the mobile phone to your server.

This is possible today with DSLR's.

Just what my daughter needs to hear...She starts her photograph class on Thursday.

We all need to go out and get us one of those hatcams....It will keep them fit to be tied trying to detain everyone wearing a hatcam...Watch they'll get outlawed...hehehe

Camara Heads UNITE!!!

They can either let us take pictures, OR we create one from fiction in Photoshop.

No taking pictures of cops, no problem, we can create a scene in Photoshop, would they be happy then? probably not lol

Pick one.

This policy in a way seems fair, and I wouldn't fight it for one reason. It does no harm to the public and it actually is a valid safety measure. Before you flame me allow me to explain.

taking pictures of certain buildings especially ones that hold value in terms of either government or economic control is suspicious because pictures ARE used to pin point weaknesses of said buildings. They are used mostly for strategy and analizing. Now if it was site seeing as a tourist and the building has no impact whatsoever except for historical reasons THEN i would say fight it cause those kinds of pictures do not mean any harm for anyone since we usually take pictures for memories and to show our friends that we visited those places and they were cool.

As long as this policy doesn't prevent from videotaping officers on duty while performing illegal power trips, this is one policy I have to agree with because of the fact that it really doesn't harm anyone. Unless I missed something, you can correct me.

Originally posted by RisenAngel77
This policy in a way seems fair, and I wouldn't fight it for one reason. It does no harm to the public and it actually is a valid safety measure. Before you flame me allow me to explain.

taking pictures of certain buildings especially ones that hold value in terms of either government or economic control is suspicious because pictures ARE used to pin point weaknesses of said buildings. They are used mostly for strategy and analizing. Now if it was site seeing as a tourist and the building has no impact whatsoever except for historical reasons THEN i would say fight it cause those kinds of pictures do not mean any harm for anyone since we usually take pictures for memories and to show our friends that we visited those places and they were cool.

As long as this policy doesn't prevent from videotaping officers on duty while performing illegal power trips, this is one policy I have to agree with because of the fact that it really doesn't harm anyone. Unless I missed something, you can correct me.

where have you been? the terrorists are not really terrorists, their actors payed by our government and the moosad...what you are supposing is absolutely preposterous.....didn't you see where they found out the underwear bomber was let onto the plane without a ticket because some guy in a suit had talked to the person letting people on the plane? this is just nuts......... and!!!!! doesn't harm anyone????taking people's freedoms away from them one little one at a time, doesn't hurt anyone??????seems to me someone is trying to disinform and make everybody "think it's going to be ok"..........

reply to post by RisenAngel77


This falls under restriction of freedom. No law was broken, no statute was violated. Therefore there is no right to harass or in anyway restrict the right of the photographer to take the picture. You do realize that people pay for stock photos, right? People use them for advertising and other purposes. There are agencies who need images of factories or maybe even a refinery if they are doing a story about it. Just because I have a camera, and take a picture does not automatically make me a criminal.

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by RisenAngel77

 

This falls under restriction of freedom. No law was broken, no statute was violated. Therefore there is no right to harass or in anyway restrict the right of the photographer to take the picture. You do realize that people pay for stock photos, right? People use them for advertising and other purposes. There are agencies who need images of factories or maybe even a refinery if they are doing a story about it. Just because I have a camera, and take a picture does not automatically make me a criminal.

you are now and risenangel77 is in agreement with it.....

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by RisenAngel77
This policy in a way seems fair, and I wouldn't fight it for one reason. It does no harm to the public and it actually is a valid safety measure. Before you flame me allow me to explain.

taking pictures of certain buildings especially ones that hold value in terms of either government or economic control is suspicious because pictures ARE used to pin point weaknesses of said buildings. They are used mostly for strategy and analizing. Now if it was site seeing as a tourist and the building has no impact whatsoever except for historical reasons THEN i would say fight it cause those kinds of pictures do not mean any harm for anyone since we usually take pictures for memories and to show our friends that we visited those places and they were cool.

As long as this policy doesn't prevent from videotaping officers on duty while performing illegal power trips, this is one policy I have to agree with because of the fact that it really doesn't harm anyone. Unless I missed something, you can correct me.

where have you been? the terrorists are not really terrorists, their actors payed by our government and the moosad...what you are supposing is absolutely preposterous.....didn't you see where they found out the underwear bomber was let onto the plane without a ticket because some guy in a suit had talked to the person letting people on the plane? this is just nuts......... and!!!!! doesn't harm anyone????taking people's freedoms away from them one little one at a time, doesn't hurt anyone??????seems to me someone is trying to disinform and make everybody "think it's going to be ok"..........

edit on 17-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)

Sigh I realize and know all this, I am just saying I think we need to focus on bigger fish instead of focusing on the small things and this one counts as a small thing. In my view it doesn't really affect me, while it does add to the pile of unjust laws, you can't take away the fact that people do bad things and eventually will take photographs to do harm.

There is two sides to every coin and this one might even prevent future false flag attacks. Think for a moment, while false flag attacks will happen and has been happening, some unjust laws can be used against the elite.


I apologize if I made you upset, was not my intent, I just like to analyze both sides of the argument.

reply to post by RisenAngel77


Don't you see how fascism incrementally creeps in, taking small liberties away until they have complete control?
How long until even being in possession of a camera is reason to be "detained" for suspicious Behavior?

Boiling the frog....

I have a solution to this problem. Get Long Beach to institute an ordinance that tickets anyone who is taking photographs without a permit.

Most cities have a law requiring a filming crew to obtain permits, so it would be a relatively short leap to include photography. The police can come up and automatically ticket you for photographing in public, then harass and jail you for making a fuss about the ticket.

Of course I don't like an idea like this, but I'm sure it has been considered by some local governments in the U.S. More money in it anyways.

no one remembers Google putting all of this information out there readily with it's Google Earth and Street view??

are they really that daft? I can get a picture of anything I want right now, and I don't have to go out with a camera.

Talk about selective amnesia.

Originally posted by RisenAngel77
This policy in a way seems fair, and I wouldn't fight it for one reason. It does no harm to the public and it actually is a valid safety measure. Before you flame me allow me to explain.

taking pictures of certain buildings especially ones that hold value in terms of either government or economic control is suspicious because pictures ARE used to pin point weaknesses of said buildings. They are used mostly for strategy and analizing. Now if it was site seeing as a tourist and the building has no impact whatsoever except for historical reasons THEN i would say fight it cause those kinds of pictures do not mean any harm for anyone since we usually take pictures for memories and to show our friends that we visited those places and they were cool.

As long as this policy doesn't prevent from videotaping officers on duty while performing illegal power trips, this is one policy I have to agree with because of the fact that it really doesn't harm anyone. Unless I missed something, you can correct me.

So because a small group MAY abuse it, it's best if it's outlawwed?

This is some of the worst logic I've ever seen, you sir fail.

Who gets to decide artistic value of a subject being photographed, can a power station be an artistic photo ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7415b1f3e13.jpg[/atsimg]

Should I have been arrested when I took this ?
what sort of idiot comes up with these ideas ? and what sort of idiot supports such a ridiculous proposal

Usually one of the first to defend police and department policies, but this crosses a line that I am not at all comfortable with. Who is to say what is aesthetically pleasing? Too broad a brush IMO. I take pictures of all sorts of random #. Now certainly if you have someone probing the perimeter of sensitive locations it may be a good idea to investigate but approaching people taking pictures of the damn skyline is an affront to our liberty.