Pixiq

why would the photog leave the scene w/out calling the cops and filing a police report?! nice arrests and lawsuit on the way!

There’s no excuse for an assault, but it wasn’t a public place. If they told him no filming was allowed he should have not filmed it.

Did he not call the police?

Don’t know any details yet. I sent him a message to interview him but he has not yet responded.

Mmmmm, I hope that church has deep pockets from which to pay this videographer.
Benjamin Bartholomew recently posted..FSP Copper Rounds

You’re joking, right Ben? Churches can’t be held accountable for PEDOPHILIA, what chance does a victim of battery have?

My wife was at the event, on private property, hosted by the Urban League. It was explicitly stated that no video recording was allowed. I do not know the reasoning or history of excluding video recording at this location or with the Urban League. I do know it was repeatedly expressed to the individual recording.

It was the opinion of many attending that these two gentlemen coordinated the recording to provoke a response by the hosts and attendees. The gentlemen taping in the back, in the shadows, was not recognized by my wife nor others present until the altercation ensued.

The police should only have been called to support the hosts. The two videographers were effectively trespassing and intentionally offensive. Attempting to garner sympathy for these two people is crying wolf. It discredits this site’s fine work of defending our 1st Amendment rights.

At no time was he asked to leave, they just asked him to stop recording.

I hope he sues their asses.

North Portland Resident,

What’s the point of inviting the public to see a politician speak if you’re not going to allow people to videotape the speech?

Those idiots turned what could have been good PR for them (hosting the former governor) into something that’s going to become a PR nightmare for them.

I hope they get their asses handed to them.

He has got to file a complaint for viewpoint-based discrimination as I did yesterday in Nashua, NH for the repeated GOP threats to arrest me, most recently at the Joe Arpaio Rally:

Watch my video and read the complaint, it's a little different as I have a history as a reporter before law school, but the vibe and issues are still the same.

Videos:
http://kellyayottesenate.blogspot.com/2010/09/kelly-ayotte-leads-republi...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8E5y04ryb4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_FwzsPdmKM

Complaint material:
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2010/09/kingcast-files-complaint-wi...

http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/120836/Kelly_Ayotte,_GOP_and_Nashua_Polic....

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2010/09/kingcast-penny-press-pamphl...

Sincerely,
Christopher King, J.D.
http://KingCast.net
617.543.8085m

I was talking to two other Christians once and it was about the law. We weren't really arguing about it but we did have separate points of view that did not agree. I was not one to accept all laws but the others believed in obeying God's laws and man made laws. After ten minutes of not agreeing the Lord settled it with the truth and silenced everybody that was there. The Lord Jesus Christ said,"Man has never made anything in the past or will ever make anything that is above the law of love that God has made!"

Let's make it very clear, the only events authorized by God in His house are the ones that are clearly seeking Him in truth. Seeking His love, seeking His forgiveness, seeking His mercy, seeking to serve Him with a high degree of unselfishness. Those kinds of things are the acts of His true people.

Now I'm asking you to pray unselfishly for that church because they defiled God's house by staging an unauthorized event. Now as a servant of the Lord I apologize for the conduct of those misguided people. Many times in the Bible God has had to guard His name from His own people. By their conduct people who do not really know God say He is this or say He is that. I apologize on their behalf and ask for forgiveness in forsaking God in your presence.

Thousands of years ago Daniel the prophet got a message from God and that message spoke about these days we live in. That message spoke of an evil spirit which would come into a land occupied by God's people and try to change the laws of God and the festivals held in remembrance of Him.

Now that there is some order what will show up in your life is responsibility. Do you think now that you know the law of love that Jesus Christ authorizes violence? That would be acting in a high degree of selfishness. That would be someone elevating their self above another brother or sister. Everyone is valuable to God and even if there was only one sinner Jesus still would have sacrificed His life so they could live.

Satan is a devourer and his main weapon is to get you to keep score against your brother or sister in life so the love you naturally have for them will be diminished and quickly fade away. God wants you through Jesus Christ to be free to love everybody, bless everybody, and pray for everybody. Prayer crushes the hand of Satan and enables the hand of God. Jesus is not in the way He is the way to the Father God. These things are not said just in His name but for His name's sake.

Great site, Carlos.

The question now is, did he have the right to videotape this? Does being in a private church allow them to prohibit filming? I don’t know the answer to this, but I would like to.

Whether he was within his rights or not to film, the guy who hit him should definitely be charged with battery.

North Portland Resident from what is seen on the video, the photographer is quietly taping and when confronted responds in a non-combative and non-disruptive manner. To respond with violence is assault in every jurisdiction in America.

Had the event hosts called the police and asked that the photographer be asked to leave rather than assaulting him, they would have been well within their rights but once they touched him, they were no longer in compliance with the law and should have been arrested.

It doesn’t matter what the opinion of those present was, all that matters is the law and the goons who assaulted the photographer took matters into their own hands and violated the law. As a result this site has taken the right approach to defending our 1st Amendment rights and you are taking the wrong approach by condoning the violence evident in the video.

It’s tempting to side with the photographer in these situations. After all what are these people trying to hide?

That being said:

It was not illegal for the man to be video taping. There was clearly no reasonable expectation of privacy at an event open to the public.

That said, trespassing is illegal. Regardless if the event was open to the public, it was being held on private property. The video clearly shows that he was asked (or told) several times to leave. The moment the photographer refused to leave he was trespassing.

I certainly do not condone the intimidation tactics used by the two men. It seems to me that the man who shoved the camera into the photographers face did commit an act of assault. His actions were not in an effort to try and remove the man from the premises, they were not in defense of his or another life and the photographer posed no obvious threat. He was simply pissed and decided to punch someone (i.e. show some of that Christian love).

What should have happened? The photographer should have been (and was) respectfully asked to stop filming or leave. If he refused to stop filming or leave, he should have been told that he is no longer welcome, and has to leave or the police will be called. If he continued to refuse to leave, then you call the police and have them take care of it. No need to risk getting yourself tangled in a lawsuit when he was not acting violently (that is posed no immediate threat).
Adam recently posted..What Do You Despise About Atheists

Adam, you indicate that “The video clearly shows that he was asked (or told) several times to leave. ” Could you point us to the times in the video where these requests to leave were made?

If he was than I would agree that he was trespassing assuming the gentlemen from the African American Alliance were acting on behalf of the property owner and that isn’t clear from what we see here.

If you listen carefully you will find that they never ask him to leave.. The closest they come to asking him to leave is at 2:13 into the clip where the gentleman says “You are going to stop filming or you are going to leave.” This is issued as more of a threat than a request to leave. They ask him to stop filming repeatedly but that is protected behavior until they ask him to leave which doesn’t happen in the clips we see.

Even if we interpret the statement made at 2:13 in the clip as a request to leave, the subsequent assault isn’t justified and is criminal behavior.

Otherwise I agree with the other comments you’ve made but just want to make sure I’m hearing the same repeated requests to leave that you are because as I listen to the clip I am missing them.

This is one part where I think we in Finland have a better law in place. It states that all places that are freely accessible by public are public areas and our equilavent of 1st amendment applies.

guy deserved it.

Private property owner sets the rules…even if such rules are lame.

Carlos, don’t blow smoke up our asses and feed up red herrings.

You shouldn’t approve the photog’s behavior – this isn’t like your metro rail stunt where the County has APPROVED photography, but enforces the opposite; this isn’t like those filming in front of Federal Buildings, but are being unlawfully stopped; this is an agitator stirring the pot by violating the rules set up by the property owner(s) when inviting the public (i.e., the public was invited on the condition they do not film – kinda like no shoes, no shirt, no service).

This is a simple property rights issue. If the property owner says no filming is allowed, then you don’t film. The fact that this demand is “illogical” (which it is) or the fact that a “politician” is speaking, is irrelevant. If the property owner required individuals remove all their clothing before entering (or any other bizarre demand) they would equally be acting within their right as property owner(s).

I think this is a good example of muddled thinking about the Constitution. This video isn’t about First Amendment rights. It’s about private property rights. The First Amendment is a limit on *government,* not private property owners. Private property owners have a right to set the terms of who is allowed on their property and how they can conduct themselves while on said property. We only have the right of free speech on *public* property because, “*Congress* shall make no law . . . ” [emphasis added]

@15 & 16: He broke the rule against videotaping. No one is denying this. However, breaking their rules does not give them the right to punch you. Imagine if instead of being punched, he was shot. Would you still say he deserved it?

Breaking someone else’s rules doesn’t give them the authority to do whatever they want to you in punishment (even if it’s the government’s rules; they have their own limits on what they’re allowed to do). In this case, the only authority the property owners had was to ask him to leave, and if he disobeyed, then call the cops to arrest him for trespass. That’s it. They do not have the authority to punch him for disobeying their rules.

I don’t care if he “stirred the pot,” I don’t care if he was trying to provoke a reaction. He was in the wrong for photographing against their rules, but that doesn’t mean the people who assaulted him are in the right. They’re in the wrong too for inflicting punishments they don’t have the authority to administer.

In fact, if he was trying to cause an incident, they just played into his hands, so this is stupid on top of illegal. When someone is trying to be an agitator, the best recourse is to stay firmly within the law and handle it calmly, without letting them provoke you into breaking the law. If you play into their hands, you’ve broken the law and helped prove their point.
infophile recently posted..Whats the difference- really

Infophile – well said. You are exactly on the right point.

Was this a public meeting? If it was I say throw out the private property crap. Any such thing involving such a public thing should supersede any such private property rights. If they want to keep out the public, then make it a private meeting. Then they can have their own private Idaho and eat it too.

Here’s the problem.

The Urban League of Portland sponsored this “Meet and Greet”.

They invited the public to come hear what the candidates had to say before voting.

Apparently, a local TV station, KOIN Local 6, also took part in sponsoring the event, meaning you know one of their cameras was at the event.

So do the organizers, who are really not owners of the church, have the right to pick and choose who gets to videotape the forum?

http://www.ulpdx.org/

Yes, the event was also hosted by the local TV station and also broadcast.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/news/political/story/Urban-League-of-P...

@18

No…this site (carlosmiller.com | “Photography is NOT a Crime”) focuses on the right to photography….

It’s not called “Battery is against the law!!”

Carlos shouldn’t not be muddying the waters between the two.

I’m sure Carlos (or anyone else) could locate incidents of simple battery on a more frequent basis than the government infringing on our photography rights. Such would be a good cause (yet no one would really cares about tom battering jerry).

Carlos needs to keeps the movement here focused on our government (or its duly appointed or authorized agents) for infringing on our rights.

Moreover, the two ushers from the AAA did need not wait for the police to arrive before using force to remove the twit from the church. They are permitted to use reasonable force, and frankly from what appears on the video does not appear to be unreasonable.

I still say the guy in this video deserved it, regardless of whether the ushers’ actions were lawful.

No one could logically argue that the guy deserved to be assaulted. Burlyman78 is right that this is a private property issue. The fact that he was a videographer is irrelevant here, except to excite the regulars who visit this site.

Legal or not, the videographers were assholes last night.

@Rick

0:35 – Moderator tells audience that filming is not allowed.

After being told that photography is not allowed he continues to film. At that point he is trespassing because it’s not public property and he is violating the stated terms of being on the property. At that point they could have simply called the police and had him arrested for trespass.

1:46 – He is asked to stop filming.

He does not comply, again violating well communicated terms of being on private property.

1:48 – he is informed that he is on private property.

The church representative corrects the photographer and tells him that he is on private property.

2:15 – “Your going to stop filming or your going to leave…”

Really pretty simple, stop filming or leave. Not much left to interpret there.

Like I said they (the church) didn’t handle the situation well at all. No one should have ever laid a hand on the photographer (I remember hearing that legally a camera is an extension of one’s body so by grabbing the camera the first rep. may have been committing assault before the other guy punched him. I could be mistaken on this). The one rep. almost certainly committed an act of assault by punching him and the use of intimidation tactics were out of line. They should have asked him to leave and then called the police if he refused.

The problem is that every single person involved in this incident was woefully uninformed, stupid, and acted like jackasses.

Before the photographer tried to make a stand for his First Amendment right, he should have educated himself concerning the limits when it comes to private property. Had the police been called, and he was arrested, he would not have been charged with videotaping but trespassing. the photographer was an ignorant jackass and would do us all (photographers, lovers of photography) a favor to stay out of the issues until he is better informed. He makes those of us who stand up for the idea that photography is not a crime look bad.

The church reps. were jackasses in their own right. They should have never touched him in any way. Punching, shoving whatever he did the one rep. was certainly out of line. Beyond that the church is obviously run by a bunch of ignorant jackasses and one has to ask, what are they trying to hide by not allowing photography?

Bottom line – photographer was assaulted. He didn’t deserve it Even though he was trespassing well before he was hit. I think the church (or the person that did it) should be held responsible for the photographers injury(s) (i.e. medical bills) but if I were him I’d cut my losses to avoid pissing them off enough that they press charges against him.
Adam recently posted..What Do You Despise About Atheists

NPR,

When you host a candidate forum and invite the public to attend, you have to expect some of the people attending might not be the biggest fans of the candidates. That’s politics.

Your issue with this guy is that he opposed the former governor.

But at the time he was approached, he was not heckling nor otherwise disrupting the event. He was just sitting there videotaping.

The guy who sat next to him created a bigger disturbance.

They are the assholes.

The only asshole there last night was you North Portland Resident.

Vancouver resident here, but clearly the cameraman who was assaulted has a case.
The fact the governor stood there and watched it without saying anything is testimony to his morals.

Private property, at least until a city wide invitation is made to all to come use it as public property for the duration of the event.
They can ask you to stop filming, but they have no right to touch you, they certainly have no right to use terroristic threats such as “this will get ugly” against you.

Cameraman, SUE THEIR ASSES.
Plain and simple, sue.

@James

“Private property, at least until a city wide invitation is made to all to come use it as public property for the duration of the event.”

People get confused with the difference between “public” and “private” property.

Public – property is property paid for with public funds (i.e. tax money).

Private Property – property that is paid for with private funds.

Regardless if the public is invited to attend, the property is still private and subject to the rules set forth by the owners or managers.

Yes, the photographer was assaulted, the rep. smacked his camera out of frustration and anger. Dumb move. But the moment the photographer refused to stop video taping he was trespassing.

So, yes he could be litigious and sue the rep. or the church, he’d probably win something. But the church could easily turn around and and charge him with criminal trespass.

In this case everyone involved was in the wrong to one degree or another.

I agree with other commentators – this issue has noting to do with the legality of photography. This is a trespass and assault issue.
Adam recently posted..What Do You Despise About Atheists

@James

For example – FredMeyer’s is a private business/building that is clearly open to the public. However, if the manager decided that he does not want you to be there he can tell you to leave. If you refused, you’d be trespassing regardless of the fact that the business or building is open to the public.

If a sign was posted that stated you had to be wearing a suit and tie to enter FredMeyer’s and you went in with t-shirt and jeans, you’d automatically be trespassing.
Adam recently posted..What Do You Despise About Atheists

A politician who does not want to be filmed has something to hide or wants to control the footage. I have a problem with both.

If I was the camera man and I heard the black lady say, “we require that all people turn off the camera now” I would have stood up and asked the former governor if he believes himself to be a public official why not allow people to film a public event? Does he not believe in the constitution? Even if it is held in a private area, this is a public event and an honest and honorable politician should be encouraging people to exercise their constitutional rights. It speaks volumes that this former governor sits quietly while security dukes it out over something as fundamental as the 1st amendment.

Let’s get this straight. Nobody has the right to do anything but leave private property. He should have turned the camera off as he was told to do. The cause of photographic freedom is not furthered by this sort of behavior. An event held on private property is a private event, even if the general public is invited.

It was wrong for them to assault him (and despite what others said, anything short of assault doesn’t justify assault in my book!). That’s the rule I live by.

Yes there are two issues here, one being the assault for photography, and the other being whether he should be allowed to photograph or not.

I think both have a place here. That’s why I’m here anyway.

All the pesky the details aside, IMO from a larger perspective, it’s stupid and backward to be trying to control video in public gatherings like this, especially political ones.

I’m hoping for the day when we all carry 360 degree cameras that record 24/7 and stream wirelessly, activated when we step outside of our houses in the morning. It sure would clear up a lot of arguments at work, and drop crime (and fear of crime) by a massive amount.

I cannot support the guy here. People like this cloud the issue and make those enforcing our actual rights more difficult. The guy kept repeating ‘first amendment’ which has nothing to do with it. that only prevents the government from blocking/censoring speech. It does not give him free reign to enter private property and do what he wants. The public can be invited, and that invitation can be rescinded, which it clearly was.
He did not have a right to tape there when specifically told be representatives to not do so. Sure, he should not have been assaulted, but he escalated the matter to the point of disorderly conduct. this is one time where I believe a charge like that would apply.

Just because someone is/was a public official it does not mean that every thing they do is open to the public.

Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B.
All I’m gonna say

I would suggest to everyone the real reason they didn’t want that man taping is because under the 501c3 IRS tax exempt status(which that church probably/90% is) the building is not allowed to be used for politics and that church is now in serious danger of loosing its status as tax exempt.

Here is a link explaining the Fashion Valley Mall case Clark mentioned. Interesting decision in which freedom of speech overruled private property rights in a shopping mall, which is open to the public.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Fashion_Valley_Mall_v._National_La...

if you rewatch the video, their faces, they look especially concerned.

It’s sorta funny, sorta scary to me how many people actually seem to believe that the appropriate response to an alleged trespass is to punch the alleged trespasser in the face. In many states, you aren’t even necessarily allowed to exert lethal force against someone who breaks in to your house at night – not only might you be civilly liable, you could actually be prosecuted for murder. The idea that if someone refuses to leave a political rally, the organizers should just punch him in the face rather than escorting him out or calling the cops – yikes.

@Adam, your right, if the manager of Fred Myer wishes me to leave he need only ask me to do so.
Once he asks me I am then trespassing if I stay against his wishes, at which point he calls the police to have me removed and charged with trespassing.

At which point was this camera man asked to leave?
Answer, he was never asked to leave.

At which point did the owners or duly authorized agents of the owners call the police to have him removed for trespassing?
Answer, Never, they did not do that.

What they did do was assault this guy and they need to stand in front of a judge who is sick of this crap and get the full letter of the law brought down on them.

As for your assertion;
“If a sign was posted that stated you had to be wearing a suit and tie to enter FredMeyer’s and you went in with t-shirt and jeans, you’d automatically be trespassing.”

Did you get your law degree out of the back of a porno mag?

At the absolute very most I would be breaking a stores posted dress policy (these are not laws, but rather private policies), at which point they would easily have the right to ask me to leave and again the trespass scenario would follow.

Please, when you comment, make sure you know what it is your talking about.

AMike B,
This is actually about as far form disorderly conduct as you can get.
He quietly asserted his right to videotape.
He has that right, as case law upholds.
He never raised his voice above a whisper except for when people were applauding and he was trying to make himself heard to the person beside him.

This is about as far from disorderly conduct as you can get.

Inviting the public to a campaign event in a church that’s televised by a friendly editor but where private photography is not allowed is creepy and sleazy and invites civil disobedience.

The thing is that diminishes the private property rule is two things; as most churches are exempt from a lot of taxes, and to get those tax exemptions they must not engage in politics or promoting candidates within the church. By getting a tax exemption they are in a way being supported by the government. That causes the church to be put in to a quasi public state.

If the church is engaged in politics then they must as matter of course loose their exemption status.

That said, the woman at the start (moderator?) is an idiot, “..respect the authority of this
‘church’..” An asinine statement at best. The “church” as no authority.

@Bentor,
It is obvious that the lady at the beginning was trying to sound as if she had some sort of education “please desist from recording and respect the authority of this church”.

A simple, “no video or audio recording except by those who have been invited to record is allowed, thank you for understanding”.

But no, she has to look like under that mass of tangled hair is an actual brain.
James recently posted..Brittanty Boudoir

@James

2:15 – “Your going to stop filming or your going to leave…”

Really pretty simple, stop filming or leave. Not much left to interpret there.

ORS 164.205:

“Enter or remain unlawfully means:

(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so”

I see two problems for the photographer:

1) His privilege to remain in the premises was contingent on him obeying the rules set forth by the property owners, or property owner representatives. One of the rules set forth was no photography, he violated that rule and thus was remaining on the property unlawfully.

2) He was asked to leave “Your going to stop filming or your going to leave…” Again, it was made clear to him that his privilege to remain on the premises was contingent on his not filming.

The church rep. should have made a more direct order for the photographer to leave: “leave now, you are no longer welcome here.”

I agree with Mike B – people like this guy cloud the issue. This is not a photographers right issue, it’s a trespassing issue. He was asked to stop filming, he should have stopped or left as he was on private property.

If the event was held a actual public building or on public land (park) and the everything went down in the exact same way then I’d 100% be defending the photographer. In this case though he was just being a dick for no good reason.

The church reps. were also being dicks for no good reason.

Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B. is a California case. Not applicable in Oregon.