Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
The Fujifilm Finepix X10, A Review
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Tips for Textures 
Butterflies in Motion
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk Inkjet Paper — Audiocast
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Taking your Portraiture Higher
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Capitol Cop Assaults Videographer During Lemonade Stand Protest
At first glance, you would think she would be the less aggressive cop.
After all, she looks to weigh only about 110 pounds.
But she was the only U.S. Capitol police officer who assaulted a videographer during Saturday’s lemonade stand protest in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C.
In fact, she slapped his camera down twice, coming close a third time when she refrained herself and simply placed a paper between herself and the camera.
The other cops, all male and burly, managed to arrest the activists without assaulting photographers.
And it was just as well because photographers outnumbered cops and activists at the scene.
The female cop - who has been identified as Sgt. Kathleen Bignotti by Cop Block - assaulted the videographer at 1:26 and 3:13 in the video, coming close at 1:56.
She didn't mind being photographed last month for a Washington Post story.
The activists were protesting the wave of lemonade stand shutdowns that have taken place across the country this summer.
They knew they would get harassed and most likely arrested for operating a business without a permit.
Three activists ended up arrested on charges of failure to obey a police officer, unlawful conduct and vending without a permit, according to the Daily Caller.
These are the same group of activists who created a ruckus a couple of months ago by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial.
Capitol police got a little aggressive that day, slamming a few to the ground, including placing a chokehold on Adam Kokesh, an Iraq war veteran turned activist and news anchor.
While the arrests that day were technically legal – there is a law against dancing at the Jefferson Memorial – the police reaction was criticized by The Washington Post and sparked an internal investigation.
So you would think Capitol police would know how to control their tempers around these activists, most who are armed with rolling video cameras.
And most did on Saturday. Except one.
Comments
She loved to walk up to the camera and then tell the operator to "Get out of my face!"
Copblock.org has a preview up of tomorrow's featured video, where she is identified as Sgt. Kathleen Bignotti:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CCLHS-lt7Q
Also worth noting is Officer Dunn, who cheerfully notes he would have enforced segregation laws, and would arrest anyone to keep his six-figure job.
I watched that Cop Watch video twice and didn't see where they listed her name. In what frame is her name listed?
In this link, Bignotti says she has 25 years of law enforcement experience?
She doesn't look a day over 35.
http://connect.lawofficer.com/profile/KathleenABignotti?xg_source=activity
Carols: it's at 4:23, the still frame almost at the end of the video.
The title of the video is "Children Defy Police in Washington.............."
Those people most emphatically were NOT children!! Having said that, I'm assuming (probably incorrectly) that some form of disciplinary action will be taken against Sgt. Bignotti? BTW, she pulled a BIG NAUGHTY by pushing that camera away!!
The adults selling are not children, but the children who buy lemonade in spite of the cop telling them not to pay are the defiant ones. That's the point of the headline. The children paid.
"Get your face out of my camera."
I understand their basic argument... but there is a big difference between a couple of ten year olds selling lemonade at the end of their driveway and a bunch of adults vending on the National Mall.
That cop should be disciplined, I hope they at least file a formal complaint.
What's the difference? The law applies to all ages. There is no age where you can sell lemonade without a permit and where you can't.
I think she's in law enforcement to make a pay check and beat up on people.
I hope they file a complaint and she gets at least a couple of weeks off.
"Get that camera out of my face."
Apparently the legal definition of in your face is 12 feet or so from what we see in the video and photos.
Good thing there wasn't any other crime happening in DC. Of course, people with lemonade and cameras aren't likely to shoot at you.
In the first incident the cop took two steps toward him before she touched his camera. That's clearly more than a foot away.
In both other instances the camera remained stationary while she approached it and she had space to easily avoid him.
RE:
"Clearly it was attempt to interfere with the arrest using photography as a cover."
Are you saying that you know "for sure" someone else's intent??
Now the no selling of lemonade at the capital is a different issue because the only thing allowed for sale in Washington DC seems to be the elected officials.
I can not speak for this persons intentions. Many of the disorderly conduct, obstruction, etc. laws on the books in the U.S. require willful intent. (And many are void for vagueness)I am not making any allegations, it is up to any person making the allegations to prove them beyond reasonable doubt.If this person is charged with any offense that requires willfull intent then it is up to the accuser to prove the intentions of those actions, not just the actions.
Did we watch the same video?
In all three instances she clearly touches the camera, the first instance was clear, the second one with the paper was not as clear but you can see the camera move down with her fingers on the top of it.
And the third instance she clearly hits it.
Again, did we watch the same damned video.
I admit I was wrong. In the third interaction the camera was moving. Therefore he arguably was within one foot of her in that instance on his own.
My point is saying that he's within one foot is a bit extreme especially since you pointed out yourself how it wasn't true in the first encounter.
You must be watching a different video. In the one I watched, the officer is at least ten feet from the photographer and walks deliberately toward him and grabs his camera. The lemonade issue is uninteresting to me and not why PINAC is covering it. What's at issue here is the officer assaulting the cameraman on at least 2 occasions.
Her exact quote was, "Hello, how are you doing? Don't take pictures of me." So she's clearly not informed that she doesn't have the right not to be photographed.
You are not arguing in good faith. At 1:26 her hand is clearly on the camera (http://i.imgur.com/ypEEX.png) and you can hear her hand making contact with the mic. They then cut to another angle where it is clear that her hand was on the camera, timestamp 1:28.
YOU SAID:
"And I don't count the 1:26 mark because the camera wasn't touched."
I have to question your reading comprehension, because Carlos said the camera was touched at 1:26 and at 3:13. At 1:26 she approached the man and grabbed his camera and told him not to take pictures. That is not a lawful order and that was not lawful contact.
You said I was confused between 1:26 and 1:56. I wasn't. You were the one who was confused. There is no e in grammar. Good day to you.
Troll
The other cops, who were twice her size - and in one case, three times her size - were able to deal with the videographer without getting physical.
I think it's obvious they were annoyed but they were able to refrain from assaulting the videographer.
Sgt. Bignotti just didn't have the professionalism and temperament to do this.
Protester does not equal prisoner.
Any touch, now matter how light or innocent is considered assault when the other person has not given you permission to touch them. Any item you are holding is an extension of your self and therefore subject to the same rules.
"If you fail to comply with a lawful order (in this case move back to ten feet) the cops has every right to move you back, or haul you off to jail if you persist."
Would you cite the statute that says this, and which defines "lawful order", please?
Exactly.
But slapping down a camera is neither of these actions.
Which is the problem with most of these "too close" rationalizations. If a cop is genuinely worried about proximity the logical action is to move you back, and no further back than non-photographing bystanders.
Slapping a camera and saying "don't take my picture" makes crystal clear what the problem is, and it isn't one the cop is entitled to do anything about.
Someone who is being detained or under arrest may require contact from the officer. A photographer who is not touching the officer or too close does not need to be touched. The officer did not tell the man to back away, she told him to stop filming. That wasn't a lawful order and she assaulted him.
@bgwillia
Which is the greater crime - selling lemonade on the Mall or pretending to be a lawyer on the internet?
> ... or just new and inexperence. Rookies are like that
Since when do they make inexperienced rookies sergeants?
"best legal distance" is that a legal definition? what does that even mean? And what about when the cop moves closer to you as you stand still?
what a nasty bitch...
This was supposed to have been a reply, posted as its own comment somehow.
Calling that assault is simply ridiculous, when the police claim a light touch, like that is assault everyone with any sense knows its ridiculous. Please grow up and get over yourselves. Get Honest and act like reasonable adults.
When the photographer is the one breaking the law, and in this case the photographer was purposely breaking the law. The police, DO have the authority to remove a blunt metal instrument, in this case a camera from the person breaking the law. The officer showed allot of restraint in my opinion. If it had been a neutral photographer recording the event then she would have been wrong. He wasn't.
The police do not have the authority to stop a person recording from a safe distance peacefully and lawfully. That is not what was happening here. They were breaking the law. IF the law, was a just, is not the issue. Lemonade for fuck sake go to the town council meeting or run against them on a lemonade ticket. Its a frigging democracy.
Calling it assault is exactly what it is, any unwarranted touch by another no matter how light is assault. that is the law, don't like it, don't care, that is the law.
What law was the camera man breaking?
Certainly the people who were selling were breaking the law, they were doing so in accordance with civil disobedience and while I say they were shits for having done so like that it was their choice and they now have the arrest records, they knew they would be ticketed/arrested going into this.
Blunt metal instrument, that is funny, here they are bristling with weapons and you talk about the blunt metal instrument called a camera. You sir are delusional.
The camera person was part of a unlawful assembly. He was there for the sole purpose of breaking the law. Protest OK but the beef is with the lawmakers not the police.
We pay the police to enforce the law, that included the removal of metal objects that could possibly be slammed into their heads when they are arresting the person who has broken the law. The law is the LAW, calling that assault is as childish as when a cop charges a person for assault for the same thing. Its ridiculous and childish abuse of the letter of the law. Its called being a total Douche.
If a photographer is peacefully recording that is one thing, if they are part of the story and have broken the law. They are Not in any way exempt from having objects removed from there hands and cuffed.
What you all are saying is simply if I ROB a bank, then have a camera when I am caught The police are abusing there power if they do not leave me alone because I am filming.
Oh shit.
Here we go again with Rich reminding us that photography and videography are crimes. That exercising our rights is unconstitutional.
According to Rich anything we do as photographers is immoral, unjust and criminal. In this case the videographers are criminal because they all have the same t-shirts on and are all in Washington at the same time. Guilt by association.
Why are you here again Rich?
Then why wasn't the camerman arrested?
"The camera person was part of a unlawful assembly."
"Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
Ah but they were breaking a different law regarding vendor permits. This wasn't the police trying to prevent a protest so save your rhetoric about free speech.
The US capitol building has protests all the time and the police don't try to stop it.
I don't see any indication that the photographer was vending anything. Or are you arguing that "conspiracy to vend" constitutes grounds for denying a 1st amendment right?
The Constitution has no meaning to the Cop suckers here.
The alignment of the photographer doesn't matter. He wasn't selling lemonade. He was just documenting. He didn't commit a crime.
Make up your mind. Was he breaking the law, or conspiring to break the law?
Either way, which law? Please cite. I really don't think any criminal prosecution of his actions could pass constitutional muster.
How many sock puppets does Johnny TrollLaw have anyway?
the Troll says:
"And the cameraman was part of that group, not an independent observer. And the law? Try interfering with a police officer for starters; demostrating on Capitol grounds without a permit for another."
We who participate here are part of a group. But we in no way are responsible for the idiotic crap you post. Just like the photographers there can't be held responsible for the actions of everyone in that park.
Photography is not a crime. They were there to record the events that unfolded. That's protected by the 1st Amendment no matter what you post. The Bitch with the badge had no reason to even acknowledge anyone but the few behind the stand.
Johnny Law usually makes sense; this guy isn't there yet.
Being part of the conspiracy may well give them a cause to arrest you, but until that arrest happens it does NOT give them a right to slap down your camera.
Perhaps you are correct, I watched it again and he did not have a yellow shirt on. She should have ignored the camera and did her job. If he was part of the protest holding a camera does not make him immune from arrest in my opinion. Calling that assault is just more of the insanity that this country has too much of. Its wrong when the cops do it and in the context of this situation I would not call that assault. She needs to be retrained but we have to dam much Drama in this country.
"Calling that assault is simply ridiculous..."
When it's the other way around it is most certainly called assault and as we have seen is used as 'legal' grounds to beat on civilians.
Yes I believe I made it clear that when the police do it is even more ridiculous.
RE:
"in this case the photographer was purposely breaking the law."
Please post the law you are referring to along with how you know for sure that that was the photographers intent.
It does matter if the law is just. That is why there are things like Constitutional challenges to laws and jury nullification.
She had a reasonable articulate suspicion that he was part of a unlawful assembly. She might not have had probable cause for a arrest. But detaining him was well within her authority. That includes removing objects from the persons hands frisking and cuffing for a reasonable period of time. She did not feel that was reasonable, so she did not do any of that did she. She only touches his Camera for a fraction of a second.
If you don't LIKE it go move to DC then you would have a right to go to the council meeting and say so. WHY do we have a tenth amendment? SO people can peacefully assemble vote for local politicians who HATE lemons. The People of DC have a right to live in a lemon hating police state. That is how they choose to live. That is what they vote for. A state has a right to hate Lemons without people from other states bitching about it Lemons are not a civil right.
If you break a Lemon Law while holding a camera they will arrest you, photographers are not a protected class.
I just think it's pretty stupid on her part. She is a sergeant who has been working on the force for at least ten years, according to my research.
She knows these activist are just trying to create a scene for their cause. That's the whole point of the lemonade stand.
She should know that these same activists created a scene at the Jefferson Memorial a few months ago that resulted in a shitload of negative media coverage for the Capitol police because of their aggressive response.
And she should also know that slapping the camera is just going to ensure the video goes viral.
I really don't have a problem with the other cops. They were just doing their job.
You can't honestly expect them to leave the activists alone, knowing they are breaking the law with their lemonade stand whether you agree with the law or not.
And you can criticize Dunn for what he said in the Cop Block video about how he would enforce segregation, but that was a loaded question and he answered it professionally.
This whole debate about how many feet the videographer was standing from her or whether he was part of the activist group is irrelevant.
He wasn't selling the lemonade and where is it stated in the law that we must stand ten feet from a cop to legally film him or her?
Do you we need to start carrying tape measures in our camera bags?
Post new comment