Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
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
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
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
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
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
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?NYPD Cop Questions Tourist Videotaping in Times Square
A man who was videotaping in bustlng Times Square was questioned by a New York City police officer.
Aaron Chegini was shooting video of a pink Mini Cooper limosuine when the cop asked him was he was photographing.
"What are you taking pictures of, the yellow cab?" the cop asked.
Chegini told him he was shooting the pink limosuine, then asked why he was asking.
"I was just curious," the cop said.
"You don't look like a terrorist, don't worry about it."
So we can imagine that Chegini is white, but what if he had darker skin?
What if he had an Arabic accent?
What if he were dressed as a Muslim?
Then we can imagine the interrogation of what he was videotaping would be a little more invasive.
I can understand if a cop is curious what you are shooting because many cops happen to be photographers themselves. I even have a few cop friends who are photographers, believe it or not.
And I've been out shooting where cops have struck up conversations with me about photography and I always engage them.
But this cop's comment about Chegini not looking like a terrorist indicates that this was more than just a mere interest in photography.
The video was first posted on the NYC Photo Blog.
Comments
Seems like you are really stretching to make a story here from absolutely nothing.
Slow week at SXSW?
I'm back from SXSW.
But I was able to meet one of my readers in Austin as I did in NY last year.
So if I ever happen to be in your town, where ever that may be, let's hook up for a beer or something. Seriously.
I won't even take your photo if you don't want me to.
heya JL, i am hereby renaming you, your now, AKA/shooter.
always ready to take a shot at anyone here that does not agree with you! [to any degree, or if ya feel froggie and just want to start something out of nothing]
and then sit in your little corner getting ready incase anyone shoots back!
It's a nice little story showing not ALL cops are d-bags.
Sometimes we need to be reminded.
The cop had zero reason for questioning him in the first place, the guy had zero reason to answer.
Had he observed his ability to not answer this would be a different video entirely.
The second issue is the assertion that all terrorist look like Bin-Laden.
The cop was a Neanderthal. That guy has no business policing the streets.
If he has been dark skinned or had decided to grow a nice ZZ-Top beard then he would "look like a tururist" and would have had something "to worry about".
Really? Because he asked the guy a question in a completely non-threatening manner and then made a joke about the guy not looking like a terrorist?
If this means the officer "has no business policing the streets", then I don't know what the hell criteria you use.
Stop looking for reasons to get offended by stuff. Cops have the right to make conversation with anyone they come in contact with. We aren't kept in a glass case that says "Break glass in case of emergency"
I dunno. Sounds kinda shady to me. Anyone with a gun accosts me and asking me what I'm doing when I'm doing something completely normal would be met with a lot more hostility.
Cops may have a "right" to _try_ to make conversation with anyone they want to, but we have a right to tell them to pound sand and question their actions for doing so.
You have a very biased opinion so let me try to spell out why this is a big deal. The officer says "you don't look like a terrorist". There are two problems with that statement.
First, the officer is apparently profiling if he thinks terrorists have a look. Profiling violates innocent people's rights. Private citizens don't have to put up with being treated like criminals for simply being in public. Public employees, however, have every expectation now to be held accountable and in some instances, even thanked for acting within their means.
Second, the officer apparently is unaware that terrorists don't have a look. This means that the officer is completely ineffective in his duties.
Recommendations. #1 retraining the officer on what to look for in a terrorism suspect. #2 train officers to report back truly suspicious activity to a higher-ups. #3 take a photo of the "suspect" himself, monitor his progress if you truly feel he's doing something suspect. Report the activity and the photo then look for patterns to emerge. #4 leave people alone. realize that most rational people associate police officers with brutality and abuse of power. Even if you think you are that "good guy" (which actually doesn't exist in the costumed "hero" variety most officers fancy themselves to be), realize that no matter what you do a good citizen doesn't think that of you and simply wants you to go away.
Police would do better by following suit. Take pictures in public. I have no issue with that. How could I expect to be able to take photos in public and tell someone else they cannot? If you see something, take photo/video "evidence" and report it up to a central command that can catalog the information and wait for patterns to emerge. We'd all be better off because we wouldn't have to be accosted by costumed scum.
Tourist...terr'ist.
IS there really any distinction in the post 911 world??
I'd say what I think but *they* might be watching.
Trust no one.
Tho you don't want to believe this, cops can just be humans too. Maybe he was just curious. Just possibly he is a photographer.
No reason to be paranoid about every minor encounter.
Tho you don't want to believe this, cops can just be humans too. Maybe he was just curious. Just possibly he is a photographer.
No reason to be paranoid about every minor encounter.
Tho you don't want to believe this, cops can just be humans too. Maybe he was just curious. Just possibly he is a photographer.
No reason to be paranoid about every minor encounter.
Tho you don't want to believe this, cops can just be humans too. Maybe he was just curious. Just possibly he is a photographer.
No reason to be paranoid about every minor encounter.
Tho you don't want to believe this, cops can just be humans too. Maybe he was just curious. Just possibly he is a photographer.
No reason to be paranoid about every minor encounter.
Tho you don't want to believe this, cops can just be humans too. Maybe he was just curious. Just possibly he is a photographer.
No reason to be paranoid about every minor encounter.
The Police in times square often help tourists, He might of been asking if he was taking pics of a yellow cab and was about to point out that he was missing the big pink mini cooper. He might have been just exercising his constitutional right of free speech.
And up till the point where he states "don't worry you do not look like a terrorist" he was fine. At that point it was clear that he was being an ass, sorry, thats how I see it. It is an opinion, therefore it cannot be wrong.
Sounded like a joke to me. Maybe you shouldn't try so hard to be offended by something?
Make a "you look like a terrorist" joke on an airplane, see if you ever fly again. Hell even say the word bomb.
I am sorry but this is simply not needed, listen to the tone of the cop, he first stands between the photographer and what he was shooting and asks "What are you taking pictures of".
He had every right to ignore the cop and keep going, he could have also stated that it was none of his business.
Until daily illegal harassment of citizens is no longer happening I will look at every single instance of officer to public interaction with a microscope.
Once it no longer becomes commonplace and Carlos must shut down his blog for lack of content then and only then should we begin to no longer treat each interaction as hostile.
When a local came up to me in my hummer I had my hand on the trigger, I did not know his intent, just as a cop you must always be on your guard for people who may want to harm you, we as photographers must always be on our guard for police who are ignorant of the laws they are to uphold.
And yes JL, you are in a case that says break in case of emergency, your entire job is to police an area to stop crimes in progress and report.
Until you can read minds you cannot stop a crime for "possibly happening", and you sure as hell cannot under any circumstances deprive a citizen of his rights without due cause, to do so is a violation of the constitution that this country is built upon.
JL, simply put, you waste your breath here, you have no redeeming moral values and you lack simple logic skills.
"Make a "you look like a terrorist" joke on an airplane, see if you ever fly again. Hell even say the word bomb."
And since they weren't on an airplane in this case, what does that example have to do with anything?
"I am sorry but this is simply not needed, listen to the tone of the cop, he first stands between the photographer and what he was shooting and asks "What are you taking pictures of"."
I listened to the tone. It was nonthreatening and conversational. Maybe you should not be so scared.
"He had every right to ignore the cop and keep going, he could have also stated that it was none of his business."
Yes but he decided not to be an asshole. I'm sure you would have acted differently. So what?
"Until daily illegal harassment of citizens is no longer happening I will look at every single instance of officer to public interaction with a microscope."
Asking a simple question is not harassment. You are hyper-sensitive and looking for any excuse to be outraged. Officers have the right (just like anyone else) to make conversation with the public. Don't be scared.
"Until you can read minds you cannot stop a crime for "possibly happening", and you sure as hell cannot under any circumstances deprive a citizen of his rights without due cause, to do so is a violation of the constitution that this country is built upon."
*sigh* Asking a guy what he is taking pictures of is not depriving someone of their rights. This is funny coming from someone who claims I lack logic skills. Take your finger off the trigger and relax.
You keep talking and all I keep hearing is "cops do no wrong, cops do no wrong".
Asking a simple question is never a simple question, the police have a job to do, that job does not include chatting up the locals. If they want a job chatting with people they can probably qualify as telephone psychics, they lie quite well.
If they want to be police then any question asked by police may be used against you in a court of law.
As the professor clearly put it, "never speak to the police".
Can't believe that I have to point this out. I'm not an expert on NYC geography but didn't that terrorist rig up a car bomb to explode in this general area? Only to fail because he was an incompetent bomb-maker?
I hope that terrorists are on the minds of the police who are patrolling the area. We do have enemies and they are doing their fumbling best to kill us, man, women and child.
BK
Terrorists are on the minds of police, which is why as a law abiding citizen you should never ever under any circumstances speak to a police officer who just happens to walk up and wants to chat.
i agree, sounds like he was bored and just wanted to converse, maybe the photog had big tits...
I wonder if it was the same cop who harassed the Adorama photographer a few months ago at Times Square.
http://pdnpulse.com/2010/11/street-photographer-harrassed-by-police-for-...
I will now enlighten everyone as to what that NICE police officer meant when he said, "You don't look like a terrorist, don't worry about it."
someone that does look like one, is a target for people that would maybe pick their pocket or/and attempt to mug them.
that cop this time seems to be doing his job, [and seems no one here picked up on it], even Carlos. but you all know what, that is fine. mo one is perfect, and some though we may try to be, is not perfect. if we all were perfect, then life would be boring. that does not mean it wasnt a story, human interaction is a story all the time. we look listen and learn from it.
anyone have anymore questions about this type of NYC interaction, please dont hesitate to ask, i will answer what i am able to, and tell you i dont know, if that is the case!
oh hell, JL didnt even know or pick up on it, i am sure he would have used that to do some more shooting!
Your headline should have read, "NYPD officer speaks to tourist in Times Square". Of course that wouldn't have been controversial and wouldn't have driven any traffic to the web page.
Maybe the officer was trying to make conversation, maybe he was a budding photographer, or maybe he was just bored. In any case, he asked a simple question, had a very brief conversation and went on his way.
As a sworn officer for a very long time, I can pretty safely presume that the reference to "not looking like a terrorist" was simply a way to end the interaction using a reference that is commonly understood, within the context of the encounter, by the vast majority of people in our current world. And that it held no nefarious meanings as evidenced by the very brief contact between the two of you.
As an officer, I find the videos substantiating offenses by officer to be so very troubling and they rock me to my core. As a photographer, as an officer and as a person who deals with the media on a daily basis,I also find this type of "reporting" troubling. It is deceptive, gives bad images of officers/people when they are not deserved and your actions could dilute the attention and impact the issue has when rights are truly violated and/or crimes are committed by officers.
As an aside, wasn't one of your recent posts about you being attacked by a roadside fishmonger. If so, you know what they say, "Where there's smoke..."
mbaker, as a member of the police force by your own admission you have a slight issue, one that seems to befall many people in your profession, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.
Carlos is the author of this article, but not the one behind the lens of the camera.
The terrorist comment was tactless at best, he could have simply kept going, as I stated to JL earlier, there is never a reason for a police officer to ever speak to a citizen unless in the official capacity as an officer.
Sorry bub but once you put on that uniform, badge and strap that gun to your hip/thigh you are no longer just Joe Schmo having a talk with me, you are now a police officer who has a responsibility to report and handle any violation of the law you may find, considering that the length and breadth of laws in the united states is completely unknown to any one person any of us could be breaking a law at any time without knowledge or harm to another person.
Knowing this it would be foolish to ever speak to a police officer unless you are being detained, and then only to give him your name and D.O.B at which point you shut your mouth, await release or await your phone call, at which point you call your lawyer, ask them to come speak to you and wait until they get there before making a single statement to the police.
I do agree with you that the articles turn my stomach, for different reasons of course, but I fully understand your reason.
I also agree with your point that too many articles could dilute the impact, the problem is that Carlos could actually post 2 to 3 articles a day if he were to go through the local news papers across the country.
Honestly Carlos posts less than he could and has his pick of daily articles. The fact that so many come out that people are being desensitized should be reason enough to make you sick to your stomach.
As for the Where theres smoke there is fire comment, I assume you are saying that he invites issues.
Sorry no, that is a classic strawman here, he is doing nothing illegal therefore there is no way he is inviting trouble, if this were marginally against the law, or perhaps there were no clear rules then maybe I could see that, but taking video and pictures of someone in the public is 100% legal and this has been ruled on by nearly every county in every state. There is a mountain of case law supporting our legal right to film.
Oh and again, this is not a video by Carlos.
Good Grief! An officer finally "clears" someone taking pictures in a polite and fully Constitutional way and people like you are all over him! How do you know some pee-pants jerk didn't report this tourist for the "suspicious activity" of taking video/pictures? The officer engaged the tourist in conversation, evidently saw no threat, and ended the encounter. I don't see how "you don't look like a terrorist" is a particularly bad comment. Would "you do not have the behavioral characteristics that would potentially indicate the potential to perform acts terroristic in nature" have been a better comment? How about "it doesn't appear you exhibit the signs indicative of terrorist activity?"
I'd like to contact this officer and thank him for upholding the Constitution while still defending the people. And if the rest of you consider yourselves Constitutionalists, you should too!
Point 1: There is nothing to clear, he was doing nothing wrong.
Point 2: Does the phrase "You have nothing to worry about, you do not look like a rapist/ child molester/ killer" sound perfectly fine to you? It should not be based upon how a person looks but based upon how they act and perform.
Point 3: If some jerk did report him then the officer should inform the jerk that taking pictures in public is not illegal and to stop being a jerk, all the while not bothering the citizen who is doing nothing illegal.
Any more bright points of conversation from you.
Point 1: And the officer learned that in a completely Constitutional way.
Point 2: Yep, actually it does. Particularly if they're looking for one. Last I checked, from a distance, how a person acted and performed was visual, thus, how they look.
Point 3: And if the person hadn't mentioned photography, but simply a "suspicious person?"
Any more bright points of conversation from you?
Ok then.
Point 1: The officer had nothing to learn, there was no law being broken, no need to even interact with the citizen.
Point 2: Way to completely take the comment out of context, the way a person looks, not how they are acting, what you just said is akin to saying that since you smelled my fart I must have shit in your mouth (mature I know but wow that was a dumb statement).
Point 3: This was based on the previous comment that "some jerk" pointed out the photographer taking pictures, keep within the hypothetical story please.
There is no way I find this interaction in anyway harmful to John Doe public. being from NYC, i find it perfectly fine the way this COP said what he said, found nothing there and went on with his business.
I think some have become very sensitive to any type of interaction with a COP. I find this very troubling as it hurts everyone, as much as what happens when THUGS[COPS]. do what they do and beat the hell out of us and arrest for no reason.
If you have nothing to say to the COP when he askes you a question then say nothing, but to say the way this person interacted was wrong? I say your wrong.
SO what is this COP guilty of, bad joke telling? is there a law against telling a bad joke?
BAD JOKES are not a crime!
maybe this COP was at the end of a double shift, who the hell knows?
and again i say, was there anything wrong with Carlos reporting this, I say no, again.
[its funny now that most here have me on ignore, seems no one read my terrorist/tourist comment. I know what the cop said, i was wondering if anyone was awake!]
Jim, although reading comprehension was not the issue, I do stand corrected for when I wrote, "...contact between the two of you". Obviously, Carlos was the author, not the person in the video, both facts I was aware of, but lost track of as I wrote. It would seem odd to condemn and malign an entire profession over such minuta.
I wouldn't presume that reading comprehension was an issue for you when it appears, you lost track of what I had written. My last comments about "where there's smoke..." was clearly made as a reference to Carlos and a video he did author and post, not about the Times Square video.
Again I believe you lost track, I made no reference to the right or wrong of the person video taping in Times Square. Of course he has the right to, there was nothing in my post, or the video taped officer's interaction with the subject that brought that into question. Unless of course someone has an agenda and just likes to read this into things.
As to your perception of law enforcement, please be aware that, for good or bad, officers are officers 24/7, it has nothing do do with when they put on a uniform. They are officers when in line at the grocery store, when at the little league game, when going to a movie, when paying their taxes at the court house and when photographing a wedding; and on and on and on.
And as to your advice on how to interact with law enforcement, what a sad and skewed perception.
Of course we could debate back and forth, but I won't.
I wish you well.
If cops would not continually be harassing photographers, then maybe we wouldn't be so sensitive.
A few weeks ago, I was photographing a restaurant from across the street. I was standing inside a fenced parking lot of a supermarket.
Seconds after I pulled up and began taking photos, a security guard started shouting at me.
My first thought was that he was telling me I couldn't take photos, so I prepared myself for the usual verbal exchange that takes place during these incidents.
But all he was telling me was that they were closing the gates of the parking lot and that I needed to leave or else be shut inside.
Fair enough. I thanked him and drove off.
But having been told so many times by security guards in the past that it was illegal to take photos, I was a little sensitive in that regard.
So if cops are getting sensitive because we overreact to their questions, then maybe they should take a look at themselves and their peers.
Maybe they all need to go through basic First Amendment training.
I've had several occasions in the past where cops have come up to me in a friendly manner and it always is a little surprising, but refreshing.
But I've had more cases where cops eye me suspiciously or try to enforce unlawful laws when I am taking photos.
So do you see why we are a little sensitive?
Carlos,
I appreciate the fact that you have weighed in on this thread.
In response to your post, you make reference to cops and to security guards, please keep in mind they are not one and the same.
As to having a look at ourselves and our peers, I think that should be a given. Even knowing that not all will look good,I personally welcome the scrutiny.
And in regard to 1st Amendment training, certainly more training is needed as is all the other areas that officers are expected to be more than proficient in.
Carlos since you see a need, as a public service, would you ever consider talking with your local law enforcement agencies training staff and perhaps you helping to make their officers more aware by being a presenter in such a training session?
And do I see "why we are a little sensitive", if I were to base my opinion on your fishmonger video and on your reporting of this incident, I'd say you are way off base and your claim has no merit. But, I'm only new to this forum, not new to the world, I know injustices, mistakes and worse happen and when they do, you should scream it. But don't try to make something of nothing.
Take care and again thanks for weighing in.
mbaker:
i think it would be a two person job as it were, and I would go free of charge along with anyother photographer doing what you ask. i think it would benefit everyone involved on both side!
you never know, this, if it actually happens, may very well be the end of those types of confrontations!
Hal,
Thank you, I'm glad to see something potentially positive come out of this thread. I encourage you and anyone else that's well-versed enough, and has a desire to make a positive impact, to contact the training office for their local police department, sheriff's office, your local bourough, etc. and let them know your interest. In lieu of a training officer, just make contact with the agency and talk up the idea. Often agencies are looking for new, novel or just sorely needed training. The public information officer for any agency would also be a very good starting point. With web sites such as they are, making contact has never been easier.
You mentioned this being a 2-person job, including a local media person (assuming your not one) could be a good idea and could cover a lot of bases.
While I am happy to see positive interaction and discussion coming form this thread I have to step back and ask a question.
Exactly what sort of teaching would be needed, it is only a few short words "taking photos in public is not a crime".
Class dismissed.
None of those are over two syllables, and nothing can be misconstrued.
what may be a good starting point perhaps,
That course/instruction they are now giving to police up in, what was it? CONN. somewhere? didnt someone in that class video ask something about if it was lawful for the POLICE just to take a video/camcorder from someone without a warrant?
Then we could give examples of what has happen to us in the past, and what our view of POLICE and john C.public is and our ideas on how it could be handled, in a good way, from both ends of that type of confrontation.
I for one, do not see anything but good coming from this type of exchange.
Carlos could be the media part of our group to maybe do this and set something up. Or I will attempt to make first contact if chosen to do so.
I think if the police, and powers to be, are able to take this as a serious matter that needs to be dealt with, and this is one way that may very well help alot, we may make some headway!
He didn't look like a terrorist. So he didn't look like this guy, then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
any time you are questioned by a Law Enforcement Official, you are responsible for every thing you say in your response. Why are not those same officials in their official capacity NOT always responsible for what they say in return? Regardless of whether the policeman was joking, it wasn't very responsible to imply a racial overtone.
Although I did like the response about terrorists having BOMB in big letters on them.
motrhed: that will never happen, cant have everyone able to lie legally, what kind of world would it be ya think? KRAZY!
it would be more fun and life would be alot less boring if for a few months or so, non-cops would be able to lie or tell the truth legally to anyone they wanted to, even a COP.
the world would be upside down, it would be great. if COPS were in prison for lying and beating up people for nothing, then who the hell would protect us from criminals?
i could not even dream of a world where everyone had to tell the truth, and they would get five years prison for lying if convicted!
that would be boring, its fun when COPS can legally lie, [and beat people up], any damn day they want to! you go day to day never really knowing the COP you last talked to lied to you or not, life would never be boring. they could tell us all a bunch of shit and we would, in some cases, never know!
everyone, [AND JL],legally required to tell the truth,,,uuuggghhhh, gives me nightmares thinking about it!
and politicians....dont get me started!!!
Post new comment