photography is not a crime


puma

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 00:41
Disgusting!!!
my web site http://www.swilsonphotography.foliopic.com/
PPG link

johnriley

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 00:44
What is?
Best regards, John

puma

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 00:51
johnriley wrote:
What is?

Disgusting!!! The way the Police, dealt with him
my web site http://www.swilsonphotography.foliopic.com/
PPG link

johnriley

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 01:01
Oh I see puma. It came straight after major's post and seemed a bit of a mysterious comment.
Best regards, John

greynolds999

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 08:28
Having re-watched this clip I am firmly on the side of the police. At the start of the clip he has been placed under arrest and has something in his hand which he refuses to either show to the police or release.

In this circumstance I would hope the police would do what they did - ensure that he is moved as far from the public as possible.

Rather than being rational he behaves like someone who has something to hide.

Quite frankly I get a bit fed up of the way the police are portrayed. They are seen as ineffective (during the riots) or overly aggressive (as in this case). If this person had been holding something which later injured or killed people and the police had done nothing there would be a far bigger story here.
My Photobucket

Frankie

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 09:47
There is lots of money to be made when youtube videos go viral. I think he was deliberately trying to provoke a bad reaction from security. How else do you explain his own over-the-top behaviour and the fact that he wants you to get lots of people to watch it.
K5 + 18-135mm kit lens

fatspider

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 10:10
I tend to agree with Gareth, while some of the later comments from the police are totally out of order this guy seems to have made the situation far worse that it was, I'm quite sure they didn't just pounce on him and wrestle him to the ground demanding to see what was in his hand, what was it Ted said, the IQ of a slug, seems it can apply to photographers too
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

generator

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 10:38
greynolds999 wrote:
Having re-watched this clip I am firmly on the side of the police. At the start of the clip he has been placed under arrest and has something in his hand which he refuses to either show to the police or release.

In this circumstance I would hope the police would do what they did - ensure that he is moved as far from the public as possible.

Rather than being rational he behaves like someone who has something to hide.

Quite frankly I get a bit fed up of the way the police are portrayed. They are seen as ineffective (during the riots) or overly aggressive (as in this case). If this person had been holding something which later injured or killed people and the police had done nothing there would be a far bigger story here.

Frankie wrote:
There is lots of money to be made when youtube videos go viral. I think he was deliberately trying to provoke a bad reaction from security. How else do you explain his own over-the-top behaviour and the fact that he wants you to get lots of people to watch it.

how can you say that the police are totally out of order he did tell them its a camera its a camrea god its a camera thats what he says
Thanks Richard

greynolds999

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 10:43
So the police are just supposed to believe him when he refuses to show them what it is or loosen his grip?

Believe it or not, people who are up to no good have been known to lie!
My Photobucket

Gwyn

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 10:55
I haven't watched it. I refuse to give such people more hits on YouTube.

I feel people like that go out of their way to paint the police in a bad light and protest too much.

ChrisA

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 11:34
Perhaps this article will shed some light.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

greynolds999

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 12:08
It does. It doesn't look like a camera to me. It looks like a laser pen or an explosive trigger.

It looks like he had the choice of explaining what it was or, as he did, acting in a way which appeared to be a danger to the public.

I think he got what he deserved.
My Photobucket

paulgee20

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 12:54
Exactly what does an 'Explosive Trigger' look like? I wouldnt have a remote clue.
K5's (2)both gripped, K10d gripped, Pentax 28-90 f3.5, Sigma 18-250mm, Sigma 150-500mm. Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro, Sigma 10-20 f.4-5.6.EX DC, Hoya 135 f2.8, Take on 28mm f2.8 Pentax AF360 flash, 2 fill in slaves. 30 metre remote release, Rt angle viewfinder, Giotto NOT 3261B Tripod with Manfrotto 808Rd4 ball head, Manfroto 4861RC2 monopoly, shoulder stock, various filters etc, Panasonic SET HBS HD Video cam, Tamrac Explorer 8x backpack and a sore back.....
-------------------------------------------------------
Photography is an index for measuring futility and pride.......

Paul

:wink
http://s743.photobucket.com/home/pg20_photos/index http://www.flickr.com/photos/pg20

OldTaffy

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 12:58
Most of us, if put in this situation, have two options: have a calm open discussion, or make a scene/issue of it.

I found myself in such a situation a few weeks ago. I have been photographing 'street furniture' of various sorts - a London cabbie has a very good web-site: Bollards of London and I sometimes send him photos of interest from other places. I noticed some unusual looking ones outside the entrance to the local Crown Court, and squatted down with my K-x to photograph them, when immediately a security guard came rushing out, waving his hands and telling me to stop taking photographs (I have a good image of one of his hands ).

I politely explained what I was interested in. He calmed down, thought it rather amusing, and explained that the 'bollards' were really ashtrays on posts because no smoking was allowed inside the Court. We had an amiable chat for a minute or two, and he merely wanted to be sure that I was not going to photograph anyone visible inside, through the plate glass doors. Fair enough. I then took a few photos of the 'bollards' making sure that I chose a viewpoint that showed no person inside. End of hassle.

I was always outside the building, on the ordinary street pavement, and could have made a big fuss about my rights etc etc. It was just easier not to do so. Was I being compliant with a police state? Well, that must be your opinion not mine.

Martin
A few of my photographs in flickr.
Lizars 1910 "Challenge" quarter-plate camera; and some more recent stuff.

ChrisA

Link Posted 19/07/2012 - 13:19
OldTaffy wrote:
.... he merely wanted to be sure that I was not going to photograph anyone visible inside, through the plate glass doors. Fair enough.

I'd argue that although I may often take the line of least resistance, like you, in fact this isn't fair enough.

If you're taking pictures of anything at all from a public place, you're entirely within your rights, and complying with someone that has no right to stop you exercising your rights is the sort of thing that ratchets up the erosion of such rights, and reinforces the general ignorance in these matters.

Quote:
Was I being compliant with a police state? Well, that must be your opinion not mine.

Technically, yes

I would add, that I'm in no way justifying the behaviour of the guy at the airshow.

In your situation, I would have explained what I was doing, but I would definitely have pointed out politely that he had no right or authority to stop me taking pictures, even if I was photographing people inside the building through the plate glass windows.

If they don't want them photographed from the street, they shouldn't have windows people can see through!
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.