Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
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?Connecticut State Police Officer Throws Tantrum Over Photojournalist
A Connecticut state police officer displayed a complete lack of professionalism when he confronted a photojournalist who was videotaping a car fire on Interstate 95 in Fairfield.
The photojournalist, who was shooting for the Connecticut Post, was standing well out the way of the car fire, so he was not interfering with any official business.
But that didn't stop the cop from storming up to him and throwing a temper tantrum beginning at 2:20 in the video.
"Does it look like something that needs to be filmed right now. There's somebody who's dying over there.
"Turn that goddamn thing off and get out of here."
The photojournalist turned the camera off, so it is unclear what happened after that.
The Connecticut Post reports that nobody died in the car fire.
Comments
So, in other words, the videographer displayed a complete lack of balls?
I think it's more a case of the videographer not knowing his rights and the law. So many do not. Besides, as agitated as this cop is, if the videographer had not shut down he may have been hurt.
I think each person must evaluate risk and how far do they want to go to stand up for rights. Who knows, he may have had kids in his car that would have been at risk. It's one thing to put yourself at risk and another to include others when they have no choice.
To judge this person as having no balls without knowing all the circumstances is unfair.
Carlos said the guy was doing it for the Connecticut Post, so considering that he was working, I doubt that he had kids with him. As for not knowing his rights, that's possible, but it would mean that he'd need to brush up on that stuff in the future.
Or attempting to be respectful. We may never fully know his motivation for shutting off his camera.
Or he had his shot and needed to get back to the office. Just sayin'.
I don't think it was because of the camera (even though he was unprofessional). The people were stopped on the shoulder and out on foot. The shoulders on IH95 are not for stopping or pedestrian traffic so the order to leave was a legal one.
Johnny, are there any exceptions made for journalists, especially those on assignment, as was this photojournalist?
Well if there is a place the journalist can safely shoot from, they are typically allowed there. Remember though, this was on IH-95, a major roadway. I've never allowed the media to post up on the highway. If they can't find a safe place to get the shot, then they don't get the shot.
Safe from who's point of view?
It's never "safe" to film police or other officials. there's always a risk.
And Johnny, what you said about "then they don't get the shot" sounds suspiciously like prior restraint... In fact, yes, i checked, it means the SAME THING!
I disagree. It didn't seem to be an order that was any way related to the photographer blocking traffic.
then he should have said that
The roadway was quite clearly impeded by the wreckage. If the LEO can walk *on* the road toward him, then there clearly is no element of danger for him to be standing on the outside of the armco barrier. CT 14-300c seems to provide for pedestrians walking adjacent to any roadway, and somehow I doubt you are anymore versed in Connecticut state law than I am, but I'd like you to tell me which Connecticut statute applies here.
That he says "all you people, get out of here," it's clear that he was just intimidating the crowd to get them to disperse. Let's not pretend it's anything more than that, Johnny.
Don't get your panties in a wad Scott. I'm simply saying *if* the people were on the roadway or emergency lane then they were wrong. I doubt any state code allows people to just wander around the interstate.
I don't know what the law would be for being on the other side of the barrier and I remind you that I was only talking about the roadway.
"That he says "all you people, get out of here," it's clear that he was just intimidating the crowd to get them to disperse."
Again, perfectly legal if they were on the roadway area. If not, then I dunno.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There doesn't have to be a "state code [that] allows people to just wander around the interstate." Unless there is a state law excluding the right, it exists. But even given that, I have cited for you the state law that grants the right to walk on the shoulder or adjacent to any roadway wherein there is no sidewalk. So even if we were playing by your inclusion-only rules, you are still wrong since it was explicitly granted by the state. Perhaps there is a law on the books that I missed; again, I don't claim to be an expert of Connecticut law, but my point is that you are not one either. I suspect your gut-feeling that there *is* such a law resides solely on the fact that the LEO in the video seemed to think he had the authority to eject them.
Even thought JL has agreed that, if they did as the journalist said, the cop was wrong, somehow this has strayed to the law on pedestrians on highways.
Your citation was to roadways, which are separate from "limited access highways" which are both restricted from pedestrian use, and access to them from anywhere other than an intersection/entry is forbidden, such as parking down the hill and climbing up. A moot point, since the journalist was outside the highway, behind the guardrail. But, JL's point is a valid one, re: police authority to move pedestrians from interstate highways.
Sec. 14-300e. Application of pedestrian rights to solicitation of rides in a motor vehicle and walking on limited access highways. Nothing contained in sections 14-299, 14-300 or 14-300b to 14-300d, inclusive, shall be construed to limit the provisions of section 53-181 or to permit any pedestrian to walk upon or along any highway where pedestrians are prohibited by any provision of the general statutes or any regulations issued thereunder.
Johnny, I will agree with you that if the videographer or bystanders had stopped their cars on the highway to watch that would be a problem, i.e. blocking ingress and egress of emergency vehicles, etc. But, if the videographer and bystanders had parked elsewhere, and walked over, I don't see the problem. First the highway was closed to traffic and the photographer appears to be behind the guard rail. Also, he appears to be a safe and appropriate distance from the scene, and is not in an area which would impede any of the responders. Indeed this embarrassment of a trooper had to go out of his way to come over to yell at everyone.
My next problem with the trooper is that he is imposing prior restraint and censorship on the photographer by stating that this is not something that needs filming. Um, Mr. Trooper, you don't get to decide what is appropriate or not. Even if the videographer had filmed the patients involved, there is no way his boss is going to air video of burned patients. But, that decision is for the editor, not government officials.
Finally, why is the officer unable to control his emotions and treat the videographer/bystanders with respect and professional demeanor? Instead he chooses to yell, use profanity, and trample on the First Amendment. If the trooper is unable maintain his cool in these situations, perhaps a different profession would be more appropriate.
Tom,
I agree that they should be left alone *if* they had parked elsewhere and walked over *and* they stayed on the other side of the guardrail. I'm not sure if that was the case in this incident though. If they were on the main roadway, they should be directed out of the area.
You are right that the trooper handled it very poorly. To make it worse, I noticed the trooper had sgt stripes on his arm. This means it was a supervisor acting that way in front of his troops. Very bad example indeed.
The highway was closed for three hours, according to this article, so he was not blocking traffic.
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Fiery-single-car-crash-shuts-down-...
Even if the order is legal, does the goddamn police need to use the goddamn language such as:
"Turn that goddamn thing off and get out of here."
What the goddamn cop!
I am the photo journalist that recorded those images. I came here to register and to alert you to this story not expecting to be the lead story for the weekend!
This accident took place on I-95 shutting down this major highway in both directions and it greatly impeded the fire personnel getting to the scene. To be very specific the accident happened at: geo:lat=41.1604964586591 geo:lon=-73.24305474758148 Pop that into Google Earth.
I parked on the street below the highway on Holland Hill Road and climbed a 90 degree bank up to the highway. I'll admit when I got to the top I was shocked I was at the best possible spot. I did in fact shoot behind the guardrail and in no way was in the way of any emergency personnel. The zoom makes it look like I'm on top of the event but I was easily 30 feet away. The stopped traffic was behind me and that is who the officer went off on after me.
I needed a total of 45 seconds of good video. I shot 2:45 seconds non stop but had what I needed for a story. The trooper going off on me was bonus material which is why I didn't pursue anything. I knew I would let the public see this officer's unprofessional conduct posting it on Connecticut Post and The Patch as well as the TV stations in the state. TV only used the car fire not the trooper.
I went home, edited the video, uploaded it to the media, had dinner, watched Cops on Fox and then covered a fire in Bridgeport. I didn't need to prove my point going to jail...you know that is what he would have done had I said ANYTHING cross to him.
I have reached out to other media sources that have been having problems with the State Troopers and have touched base with a lawyer.
It is scary that this officer knew the camera was rolling and went off like this. Can you imagine him when there is no camera? Not only that he is a sergeant.
I've had other situations with local officials. Knowing most of the chiefs I would deal directly with them and have the situation rectified. I hope this will help all the media here in Connecticut to let us just do our jobs.
"The trooper going off on me was bonus material which is why I didn't pursue anything. I knew I would let the public see this officer's unprofessional conduct posting it on Connecticut Post and The Patch as well as the TV stations in the state."
Letting the buffoon hoist himself by his own petard. Well played sir, well played.
How is it, that someone must be a "family member" to watch something in a public place? Are we in Korea now?
.
.
.
At least as a journalist you have some protection. Take a look at this article:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras
I am usually in favor of giving the police the benefit of the doubt so they can do their job.
In cases where cameras are concerned I think the police and the judges need to be put in their place.....
Note: Sorry for the multiple posts. I was having some connectivity issues....
As an interesting aside I read an article that said that assaults on police is up over the last several years. They were postulating that it might be because people don't respect cops as they once did.
Imagine that.. Poorly behaving cops hitting the news all the time and respect for the profession on the decline.
And JL, dude COME ON, your almost automatic assumption that an order is legal is silly. The people don't answer to your whim, and the words crossing your lips do not make them legal. I understand as a cop you assume that what you say and do is always legal but that is a dangerous assumption to make. Your automatic benefit of the doubt to the cop is tiring.
In this case it was NOT a lawful order, there was no threat to OR from traffic and the guy was well out of the way. I keep bringing this point up, when officers act poorly THEY are causing the erosion of respect for the profession and UTTER lack of professionalism, hm, that helps.
Elliot,
And your automatic assumption of misconduct/illegal orders/excessive force is pretty annoying as well. The video certainly looked like the photographer was on the roadway. Do you think it is legal to just park on an interstate and start walking around to take pictures?
If someone is on the roadway, it is a legal order if the officer tells them to leave. I do expect people to obey a lawful order when I give one. If you want to consider that expecting someone to obey my whims, go right ahead.
If Steve Krauchick is indeed the photographer and what he says is true about his position, then the officer was in the wrong. If he was in the roadway, then the officer was in the right (no matter if he used profanity or not).
So you are basically saying that it is their own damn fault that police are getting assaulted? I guess all those rape victims were asking for it too right? You may have some epic problem with authority but that does not excuse assaults on police officers. Sorry, try again.
The very first frame shows I was behind the guard rail. If you are uncertain of my credentials you can verify with The Fairfield Patch at:
http://fairfield.patch.com/articles/woman-killed-driver-seriously-injure...
JL,
I don't simply assume that they are legal, if that is an assumption of illegal orders etc then so be it. The sheer number of cases shown don't provide me with any basis for granting the benefit of the doubt. The videographer wasn't ON the roadway. Assuming he WAS, the next question would be whether the road was open.. Assuming it was THEN you might actually have a case.. Since BOTH of these assumptions are not true it gets difficult. So in this case yeah, your whims are neither legal or justified. The officer was wrong, deal with it, and his lack of any shade of professionalism doesn't help his case..
And I AM saying that officers are partially responsible for some of the shit they have to take. When officers are allowed to act unprofessionally with no repurcusions society WILL react. When officers act in a professional manner and legally they deserve respect, just BEING a cop is no longer enough, not as it once was. Look at this from society's side and not your cop view, in MANY places cops are viewed as thugs on par with the criminals they are supposed to be protecting us against. Your mention of rape victims is silly, they aren't asking for it and I wouldn't wish that on ANYONE, and it is nothing but an attempted distraction. And I'm not saying it is ok to assault officers, I'm saying that respect for the profession has greatly declined and cops share a portion of the blame for it. New stories of at LEAST questionable conduct EVERY day don't help. It also makes it harder to say that it is rare or there are a few bad apples, because they are EVERYWHERE. Just step back from "cop think" and look at how that looks to the citizenry, bad cops everywhere. That isn't going to have any effects?
And I don't so much have issues with authority, I have issues with misuse or abuse of authority with very few apparent repurcussions. Cops who know the law and are professional and respectful deserve to be respected. Unearned respect is called courtesy, cops who don't know the law, are unprofessional or disrespectful don't deserve that either. Simply wearing the uniform just isn't good enough..
Failure to understand that cops behavior has an effect on how they are treated back is nothing short of delusion. If you treat me with respect I will probably do the same back, if you are rude and ignorant, I will simply let you screw yourself, all on video..
Think that through..
Elliot,
You need to put it in perspective. Tens of thousands of officers interact with hundreds of thousands of citizens every single day. You see a couple of videos here and there and you think that the entire profession is down the tubes. Hell half the stuff you see that influences your opinion isn't even misconduct. It's just the enforcement of laws that you either don't understand or disagree with.
I think that there are plenty of people who will seize upon any incident so they can point their finger and say "Aha! See?! The police are bad!" I've seen a number of non-stories featured on this site that are used to get everyone worked up. If you hate the police, any incident can be used to prove your point. I will continue to try to point out reality to the folks here because otherwise this place will just be a bunch of people being permanently outraged over very little.
The truth is that the majority of people have a high opinion of the police. This site and its commenters are not a very accurate representation of the population.
JL,
Inaccurate representative of the population.. Maybe it isn't, even with that said when that population is granted the ability to restrict someones liberty (ie: arrest) I am less willing to cut a break and more willing to accept the bad/poor/illegal behavior of a smaller population as representative.
As another poster stated, I have to agree that the repurcussions of violations such as this should fit the pattern. If a cop has decided that video taping etc is not to be allowed regardless of the law, that guy should GET HAMMERED. If a cop gets emotional at a scene he should be counseled on it, the first time, if it continues then police work may not be the right profession for him/her.
Everybody has a bad day, but that doesn't make violations by cops ok. In all reality, "I'm having a bad day" is not accepted by cops as a valid defense, why should it be accepted by society as one FROM cops. Just look at it from our side..
You point out a number of potential cases that are neither misconduct or illegal, just realities of police work.. *MAYBE* However a significant number of the cases don't fall into that category, you can argue different, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Interesting that the newspaper published some photos taken by the fire department during the incident.
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Fiery-single-car-crash-shuts-down-...
Very true Tom, I was going to mention that but didn't want to get too wordy. If you look at the first photo you can see the firemen giving CPR; but no trooper censoring what they were photographing.
"As an interesting aside I read an article that said that assaults on police is up over the last several years."
I can see why someone would want to throw this cop a beating. Coming on to someone's property with no warrant and then arresting them for refusing to answer questions is way out of line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEpp31DmB8
Actually, someone did die. The driver is seriously hurt, and the passenger died.
Listen to the policeman. He's not on a power-trip, he's not one of those ass-hats pushing people around because he can, he's genuinely upset. Because two people were severely injured.
He was wrong, no doubt about it. The newspaper should follow up on this, and get the police officer some guidance. But, this isn't equivalent to one of those policemen running around telling people they can't photograph policemen eating donuts. When we don't see the distinction between wrong, misguided, but genuinely motivated and wrong, misguided and on a power trip, we're not contributing too much to the discussion.
Everyone's rights should be honored *all* of the time. Nobody should presume to impose their "sense of decency" onto anyone else; you have no idea what I find decent. For all you know, the family would've liked to have had that video recorded because it was their loved one's last moments. You just don't know.
To make a distinction about the legitimacy of someone's rights being infringed upon is to allow subjectivity into the matter and to begin slow removal of that right from existence.
Yes, they should. You quote "sense of decency" but I'm not sure who you are quoting. I'm also unclear to whom you are making the statement, "You have no idea what I find decent." It certainly isn't responsive to anything I posted.
if you are, in fact, responding to my post, you might want to read it closer. It doesn't in any way address decency, or the legitimacy of someone's rights being violated. It does draw a distinction between the motives of the police officer who is violating the law. If you don't think that's important, fine, but that's all I was pointing out. Especially in light of the internet tough guy posturing going on. This was a cop that was incorrect in both the substance and style of his actions. But it was also clearly not a policeman who was simply throwing his weight around. Make a difference? Sure. I deal with assholes with power issues much, much differently than I deal with those who, in the grip of strong emotion (for a reason) react instead of think.
Sorry, I only quoted "sense of decency" to lend even less credibility to its existence, but nevertheless, I was referring to the officer thinking it is indecent to film the scene (the source of his emotional outburst). My point was that the officer emotional outburst is no more legitimate than me yelling at the cashier at the grocery store for not taking my monopoly money. I no-more expect the cashier to be understanding of my abuse than I should have to be of the officer, and that the officer has the ability to restrict my freedom should elevate him to even higher standard.
Think of it this way: Police officer comes to scene of accident, elderly woman on ground, dying, husband also hurt. He looks up, and some guy, in a crowd of rubberneckers, is videotaping. He reacts emotionally, and runs everyone off, including the videotaper.
Now, no one here, not Johnny Law, not anyone, is defending what he did, or the fact that he was wrong about his authority. The distinction isn't about whether being driven by a highly emotional event makes him right, but rather, it drives how we address his mistake. This is a guy who needs to be pulled aside and yelled at by his boss. In your example, you've got no legitimate source of your emotional state before you yell at someone. And, yes, the policeman must be held to that higher standard, and has to be corrected, but I distinguish that from the below example.
Now, instead take a cop who, without that emotional stimulus, simply decides that, "you can't tape police without our permission/you can't tape crime scenes/you can't tape accident scenes/you can't tape medical emergencies." That policeman needs an official complaint in his file, and official action against him. That's the kind of cop who arrests you for contempt of cop, disorderly conduct, disobeying a police order. Like the cop who was parked illegally, and the citizen tapes it...and the policeman follows him home, calls backup and storms the house. That's the kind of cop you stomp on as hard as you can. I don't think the Sergeant here, so far as we can tell, is that guy.
Thanks for the elaboration, I see what you are saying, and I agree that the reprimand should be measured by the circumstances.
Poopy. Double post.
Exactly. There are so many instances of abuse, it's easy to lump them all together.
Interestingly, the journalist, posting here, implies it's a systemic issue with the state police. If so, then the policeman may be implementing the unwritten policy, and he gets no break from me. I'm curious about any follow-up the journalist may do on this. How pervasive is the police versus journalism/photography issue there?
I personally think that the photographer in this instance was a great guy. He was respectful to the situation at hand. As a university lecturer friend of mine said: The constitution does not give you the right to be a dick in public.
The photographer took his photos & when he was told to leave had the restraint and compassion to do just that. Somebody fighting for life isn't really news-worthy (at least not worth more then a single photo or two).
-M
p.s the cops was also in the right. If i had been in a car accident i wouldn't want people taking photos either.
Oh where to begin...
I take great exception to the statement that the Constitution doesn't allow you to be a dick. It absolutely does, and such things as the first amendment guarantees that at some point you will get pissed off.. You have the right, it might be rude but not illegal.
And whether you want pictures taken while in public or not is not YOUR choice, it is mine, individually. That is the whole point of this blog.. In public you don't have the right to choose not to be photographed.
You can argue the legal rationale the cop thought he had to have them back off, but there is no possible legal debate on whether the video was legal or allowed, it was, period.
Sorry Matt, I'm going to have to deem this Epic Fail.
dude you dont have to be breaking the law to be told to move by the cops. Elliot if you had just been in a car accident & you are really fucked up because of it, the last thing you want is for there to be a whole lot of people taking photos of how fucked up you are.
They moved the guys on as part of a law i call the "law of don't be a dick."
Its about showing respect dude, someone elses suffering doesn't exist for your entertainment. I swear your country has really been fucked up by reality TV ;) .
-M
"dude you dont have to be breaking the law to be told to move by the cops."
And often people aren't breaking the law when cops tell them to move. But it's also not always a lawful command that must be obeyed, either.
"...the last thing you want is for there to be a whole lot of people taking photos of how fucked up you are."
I'd like to know how you know this is the last thing any other person wants - much less Elliot, why it's such a bad thing, and what that even matters given what the law is.
"They moved the guys on as part of a law i call the 'law of don't be a dick.'"
That's a judgment and your preference, neither of which is enforced by US law.
"Its about showing respect dude, someone elses suffering doesn't exist for your entertainment."
The news isn't entertainment. Or at least that's not the goal...
Matt,
I will address your points individually.
1. You don't have to be breaking the law to be told to move. TRUE, HOWEVER, not all of those orders are legal nor are you required to simply do as you are told. I am not a subject of this government, I am a citizen, there is a difference, learn it..
2. If I had been in a car accident it is NOT within MY RIGHTS to tell YOU what you can and cannot do. I don't get infringe on your rights because I don't like what you are doing. GET OVER IT! The cop can set a cordon to control the scene but there are limits and they don't get to say what I can do outside that cordon in almost all cases..
3. The "law of don't be a dick" has no force of law here, NOR CAN IT. There may be moral and ethical considerations but not legal. If I want to record your death I CAN, YOUR WISHES HAVE NO LEGAL FORCE. I may CHOSE to honor your wishes but it is my choice.
The simple fact is that in public your rights to control others behavior is VERY limited, as their control over YOU is very limited. As a moral and ethical society most people would honor such requests, but not because they are required to..
It *IS* about showing respect but not by legality but by choice.
And reality TV has nothing to do with this.
This has to do with the government being forced to follow the laws THEY are bound by, when they don't they need to be punished and educated. Perhaps you live in a place where the government can largely do what they want without really answering to the people or have great control over the press. When they are allowed to violate the law without having to answer for it, IT WILL ALWAYS escalate to more and more laws violated. While we have issues, our first amendment is singularly one of the most powerfull rights in a free society.
First, the policeman: Assuming all is as it appears, and as described, no, the policeman was not in the right. Police do not have the authority to enforce what you "want." I don't want Republicans to vote, but I can't have the police make that happen, now can I?
As for the photographer, maybe. It doesn't appear he did it out of compassion or restraint, at least he doesn't describe it so here or elsewhere. If he acceded to the policeman out of a personal sense of ethics or morals, good for him. But, that doesn't make it the "right" call.
Your lecturer friend my want to bone up on the constitution. The first amendment is not about protecting popular speech, it's about unpopular, or dickish, speech.
Double
Post new comment