Pixiq

Good point. Where does the argument go when the cops chime in that they're all military veterans as well? Nowhere.

"Whining?" When I read "...he served our country overseas to protect basic freedoms like the First Amendment," it seemed crystal clear that Patch was pointing out the irony of being arrested while exercising a fundamental right, after having served to protect those rights.

An excellent point to bring up during a news interview about an alleged civil rights violation, don't you think?

It's also a straightforward public relations proposition, and a smart one, too - for both himself and for bringing attention to the plight of photographers. It probably helped him get on the news in the first place, and in the end his service, or the newscast (or both) may assist him with getting the charge dropped. Very smart.

But after you whined that Patch even mentioned his service record publicly, like you think he shouldn't have, it really made me question your motivation. Big WTF.

Your own argument doesn't get beyond the semantic underwear-in-a-twist stage, with your vets-shouldn't-mention-military-service-because-we-should-all-be-treated-equally, which is laughably at odds with the fact that HE WAS NOT TREATED EQUALLY, and that photojournalists are not being treated equally by LEOs.

Given the fact pattern repeated in this guy's incident: videographer/photographer arrested for capturing arrest, I think it is entirely appropriate that Patch mentioned his service record. For the irony, for the PR, for his background, all of it. I say "bravo" to him.

It’s important to point out the Military Aspect of this case because it points out the irony of our Military Troops fighting for our supposedly “Freedom” IN THE WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY…

There already is a law. There already are several laws. 18USC242 to name just one.

What good do you think it would do to pass more laws against something that is already illegal? The existing laws aren't being enforced, why would you think new ones would be?

> 4. If you have a good experience, afterwards say thank you, or call in a compliment. That way when they see you the next time, they wont freak out on you and you'll have more latitude in the future

Are you shitting me? You must be burning through the sani-wipes keeping your nose from turning brown, @btdown. That, or you are a cop, because you're telling it just like a cop wants it.

Where I've done most of my paid and unpaid street shooting (NYC), just pointing a camera towards a cop guaran-fuckin-tees that one or more things will happen-

1. The cop or his buddy will position themself to block your shots
2. The cop will shout, from where they are, that you cannot take photos of the scene
3. The cop will come over and stand an inch from you and shout that you cannot take photos of the scene
4. The cop will come over and put his hand over your lens
5. The cop will quote a non-existent law to intimidate you into leaving the scene
6. The cop will threaten to call your editor
7. The cop will threaten to arrest you

It isn't that cops are uncomfortable with people near them - for fucks sake, in midtown Manhattan they can easily be surrounded by people less than a couple yards away! But the photogs they like to keep far away. That's illegal, and you know it's about protecting themselves from bad media coverage, not from any made-up-on-the-spot danger.

And it ain't about "proving a point," this site is about ensuring cops don't overstep their bounds and prevent us from doing our jobs. Most photographers working crime scenes and street will very likely know the law and its limits regarding the media at crime scenes better than a cop will, because they deal with it every day.

That's why this site exists. Now, waddle back to your widdle squad car, because an APB on jelly donuts was just called out...

This is generally some good advice for people to follow, but others would disagree with some of your points.

For instance, some people aren't happy with images that are taken with a zoom lens from 20-30' away, especially when other passersby are coming within mere feet of the action, the detainee, or the officers. If others can get that close on a public sidewalk that's still open, then that means photographers can get that close too. But I would argue that you can't always get great shots that others want to look at from that far away and there is a lot wrong with a little bit of zoom. Personally, I don't own any zooms and shoot wide all of the time.

The line of sight and danger area argument is also subjective because in Los Angeles there's always people behind officers when their in public and doesn't matter what they're doing. Are we not suppose to walk behind beat cops now?

I also don't understand why you believe that police officers should receive special treatment from photographers or be treated differently than anybody else a photographer chooses to photograph while in public space. I mean I'm not going to offer some random person a portrait session because he didn't berate me, assault me, or violate my rights because I took his picture while in public. It's also not my responsibility to be someone's PR manager, and if I wanted to get my work in the local paper I would send them my portfolio first and wait for the paid assignment.

On the other hand, when LAPD is respectful, doesn't hassle me, and understands my right to take pictures in public I do make it a point to say thank you because many of the Hollywood cops know me by now. For example, a couple of months back LAPD had two guys detained on Hollywood Blvd and the detainee started yelling at me for taking his picture. This is the first time I ever photographed these particular officers. Well, I was very surprised when the officer told the guy to shut up and that I could take his picture. I was very appreciative of him and let the officer know that. We had a nice, brief discussion where I also made it a point to say that most of his colleagues do not behave that way when photographing them. The encounter's on video too, but I haven't developed the film yet, which is why the video is not on the web yet. But it will be soon because police deserve praise when they do the right thing.

You are absolutely correct, especially after what has happened in Norway, it will now be blond hair, blue eyes Christians that they’ll go after. Bottom line, we are all fucked.

Yes, I do take pictures a lot and I would say I do have a "rap going locally" for what I do. So I'm fine. However, none of that was accomplished by doing any of what you suggested and I don't plan on incorporating your advice into my workflow. It's not necessary.

Making friends is always a good thing in any part of life and it will give you an advantage from time to time. In regards to photography a very successful paparazzi would be a good example of that. But it's not always true and making friends with everyone on the street, including emergency personnel can be distracting and detrimental to photojournalists and street photographers because you end up talking instead of taking pictures.

If you want respect you first have to earn it and also give it back, which some LEO's seem like they aren't capable of doing. They simply demand it from you, which means the officer's behavior often determines the kind of response they get. If you're gonna act like a jerk, then you'll likely get the same in return regardless of who you are. But if you recognize my right to be there and document the event, then I'm gonna give you adequate space and let you do your job. Getting close is the objective though, because that's where the best photos happen—not 20-30' away with a zoom lens.