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?Pennsylvania Police Blatantly Lie to Reporter About Wiretapping Laws
Police in Pennsylvania blatantly lied to a reporter who was videotaping from a public sidewalk, stating that the reporter was violating the state’s wiretapping laws with his camera.
The reporter informed the officer that it was not illegal to videotape from a public sidewalk.
So the cop quickly changed his tune, asserting that he was merely “asking” the reporter “as a courtesy” to stop recording.
The fact that the cop knowingly lied is not surprising anymore. We’ve seen it happen so many times before.
Unfortunately, most citizens would immediately shut their camera down because they would probably think the cop was telling them the truth.
The reporter was covering a group called Showing Animals Respect and Kindness that were protesting outside a pool store because the owner also runs a business where pigeons are tossed in the air and shot for sport.
Police were called to the scene after a confrontation between protesters and a group of men in an SUV who were videotaping them.
The protesters began following them in another car while videotaping them. The two cars stopped and both parties jumped out.
One of the men from the SUV tried to grab the camera from them.
The driver of the SUV also allegedly pointed a gun at them.
The protesters apparently recorded the incident, so they downloaded the clip on a laptop and drove it down to the police station.
Police ended up confiscating both the laptop and the camera.
Now the protesters are pissed because police are not returning the laptop.
According to The Intelligencer:
District Attorney David Heckler said he didn't know the details of the investigation and that there could be several reasons police seized the laptop and the camera. He said police will likely get the victim's personal property back as soon as the investigation allows.
The article doesn’t go into more details, but they should never have given up the laptop or the camera in the first place.
They should have just uploaded the video to Youtube, before sending the cops a link.
Police also ended up forbidding a reporter from entering the premises in an attempt to ask the owner questions.
Later when the reporter attempted to enter the business to ask the owner for comment two officers blocked the reporter's path and said the owner didn't want to comment. They insisted on obtaining the reporter's identification while an officer went inside the business and returned to say that the reporter was not permitted onto the property.
One thing I’ve noticed is that when cops' initial demands to stop recording go challenged, they resort to the old, “I’m just asking as a courtesy” technique in the hopes that you will feel like an asshole for continuing to record.
But next time they ask me that, which I know they will, I will ask them as a courtesy to respect my First Amendment rights to record on public property.
Comments
First its breaking a wiretapping law and then it's a "courtesy". Which is it? Oh I know, intimidation.
Sad that people have to learn to protect themselves by uploading to youtube first THEN going to the police.
Why do we have to learn to protect ourselves from the cops?
zing
Just once I want to see an officer fired for this shit. He was clearly lying, he was clearly trying to intimidate using the color of law, he knew it was not illegal, he made an illegal demand, fire his ass.
I'm with you on that one.
So at the risk of getting arrested for contempt of cop, has anyhone thought to confront the officer with;
"You said it was against a wiretapping law, and now you say it was just as a courtesy. So did you lie when you said it was against the law just because you do not want a record of how you interact with citizens? That would be an ignorant thing to do in my opinion. It means I can't trust anything you say to me as being a lawful order because I know you lie. Or is it that you do not know the law, and I can't be expected to follow the instructions or demands of an officer too stupid and incompetent to be taken seriously. Which are you officer? Ignorant or stupid?"
Of course you would probably be tazed and arrested. But the video would live forever on the internet. :P
Just to add to the comment line. Is it possible to get an officer in trouble for lying to a citizen? From what I have seen on videos like flex you rights police CAN lie when needed. (like saying they are not police when doing a prostitution sting) But can they lie about a question of law during a stop?
If they can, then folks will have to demand they be detained and get stuff in writing, and when it falls apart they go for wrongful arrest claims. The drawback is you spend a lot of time in jail, then in court.
But if police are supposed to know the laws and not make stuff up, maybe there is a business model for the litigiously minded to confront the lies and get payback. The guy in New York got what, 38 000 dollars for 19 minutes in handcuffs? That's 2000 dollars a minute. (plus a year in court) :P
Lies and deception are the main weapons of the cops used to entrap you. That's why you never talk to them.
Watch "Don't talk to police" on Youtube and let Officer George Bruch tell you himself.
How am I supposed to know what is a lye and what is not? To that point how am I to know if what cops give me is what they say it is? speeding ticket? summons to appear in court? warrant to search? It's a catch 22 that the citizen is always on the losing end. Also, a perfect defense for any cop related offence.
Well, for one thing, a lye is a caustic chemical. If you're being exposed to lye by a cop, the truthfulness of the statement is less important than the assault with a chemical weapon charge you ought to be filing. =P
Maybe the officer is just trying to help with your soap making hobby?
I am always amazed at the things people take the time to protest. I'm equally amazed at the things people do that warrant protests. Pigeon shoots? Really? Pigeon protests? Really?
There are some arguments you wish they could settle with a hand grenade duel at 0.005 paces.
Have to keep hold of that evidence, in case the guys in the SUV were people the cops want to protect...
Or maybe just not smart enough to copy digital files.
"It's a catch 22 that the citizen is always on the losing end."
Don't be so gloomy. Simply say, "With all due respect, Officer, you are mistaken. The courts have not
ever interpreted this type of public recording
as wiretapping offense."
End of story. If he touches the camera, sue.
Hardly a losing scenario.
Sue? Nothing in the law shields a police officer from a citizen's arrest. If he's committing a crime, arrest him.
Yeah let me know how that works out for you.
And that right there is exactly the problem.
Is there a reason it should not work out for him? He is legally performing a citizens arrest of another person for a felony, is there any reason why he would have trouble doing it?
Or are all police now above the law they they are to protect?
Oh wait thats right, most cops have so little knowledge of the law they wouldn't know if they were protecting it or not.
That's because in "Johnny Law's" eyes..
"Cops Can Do NO Wrong!"
Rail Car Fan
That's true.
On this site Johnny Law even condones his cop cohorts in crime physically abusing women!
What a sicko.
You know... Even though I disagree with Johnny Law sometimes, I actually find myself liking the guy. I would love to sit down and chat it up face to face. <-- this may be because I have several friends that are LEOs and I get into arguments/debates with them all the time about 1st amendment stuff and photography related issues.
The problem there though is that there should not be an argument, the laws are crystal clear, there is nothing illegal about it.
This is about as pointless as debating whether or not killing someone in cold blood is illegal.
I agree, it is a problem; however, have you ever confronted an officer about a photography issue? With the law in your hand you will still have to verbally beat it into them. This doesn't always work. Sometimes even the law won't convince them. There always seems to be a reason to ignore it.
Yes I have, in fact my neighbor is a Beaverton Or police officer.
I have shown him direct statutes and laws. He still ignores them.
The fact they choose to ignore it is clear indication of the issue here.
I've had cops tell me I couldn't park my mid sized pick-up in a metered spot because no trucks are allowed after 911. This was for a wedding shoot in a city park on a city street. With hundreds of SUVs parked up and down it.
Same place. I was ready to hop out of a client's party bus to shoot the bridal party. We were at the #1 spot in the city for wedding pics. Public property. Before the bus could stop some psycho cop was screaming at us. He was in a blind rage. It was illegal for us to be there he screamed at us. We needed a permit... If we stopped he would arrest us. The bride was in tears. Both the Park District and the District Commander said the pig worked for the other dept. and he wasn't their problem.
I've had a drunk pig and his 6 brothers try to beat me during the reception. They were trying to use my gear without my permission to take pics of the drunk with his date. They got mad when I tried to rescue my back-up camera rig from them.
I've had a drunk pig at a reception physically sticking to me then bump me every time I raised my camera. He was pissed because my assistant would not let him open the doors at the church to enter. He was late and the bride was walking down the isle with her father. But I was the rude one for not letting him wreck the bride's ceremony. He refused to stop assaulting me during the dancing so we packed up under the eye of the house security team (most likely cops themselves). They escorted us till we were safely in our vehicles.
And that's just off the top of my head. I was lucky to get out with my life. There was no "with the law in your hand"... It was " Dear Baby Jesus, I know I don't believe in you anymore, but please let me live".
It's completely legal to kill someone in cold blood, if you're the right person doing it.
After all, if a state-employed executioner obviously enjoys his work too much, he gets a psych evaluation and may lose his job, so he has to be cold blooded about it.
"On this site Johnny Law even condones his cop cohorts in crime physically abusing women!"
I do? News to me. Oh wait, are you trying to put your twisted spin on that female reporting that got pushed back after she tried to push past a line of cops?
Nicely done with your straw man.
A woman was elbowed in the chest by some sadist with a badge. You publicly approve of the attack.
So how do you feel about pistol whipping children and shooting the family pet?
Run and hide now Officer Ticking Time Bomb. Run and hide.
"A woman was elbowed in the chest by some sadist with a badge. You publicly approve of the attack.
So how do you feel about pistol whipping children and shooting the family pet?
Run and hide now Officer Ticking Time Bomb. Run and hide."
Go cry in a corner at the mean old police. Whaa whaa whaa...
I just came to this site and read a few of the posts. I'm seriously LOLing because someone apparently sent Johnny Law a wikipedia article about "straw man" arguments at his morning LEO circle-jerk.
There are a lot more logical fallacies out there. Can you guess which one I'm using right now? ;)
It's not my job to train cops, and every second of my time I am forced to waste is another photo I could be taking and possibly selling.
It was stated in the above article..
"The fact that the cop knowingly lied is not surprising anymore. We’ve seen it happen so many times before."
As we all know.. "Cops Are NOT Your Friend!"
Rail Car Fan
Indeed, police can and do lie. Courts have ruled repeatedly that they can lie and will never suffer any consequences. The biggest thing people should take away from this incident is that police DO lie.
How are you supposed to know when they're telling the truth? Well, you can't -- and that's the point. Police do not exist to protect you! Your only protection is to know the law yourself. And yes, quoting the law to police who lie is ground for arrest (contempt of cop).
Welcome to police state, America.
Exactly. If you or I were to lie to a cop in the course of his investigation, it would make it harder for us to prove anything in court, because his recollection of our false statement would be given greater weight by the court than our direct, in-person testimony. And lying to a court is illegal.
But if a cop lies, even on the stand, even if the defendant can prove he's lying, the consequences of the cop's actions are usually a slap on the wrist at worst, and the false conviction of the defendant.
"End of story. If he touches the camera, sue.
Hardly a losing scenario."
It can be. First you have to lose days from work to go to court, possibly multiple times. Then if you wind up with a pro cop judge your chances of winning anything drop to almost zero. The U.S. court system is designed to favor cops, politicians, and the rich, not you.
If a cop commits what would be a felony if you or I did it, make a citizen's arrest for the felony. Nothing in the law shields a uniformed officer from being arrested, and the crimes of resisting arrest and fleeing arrest almost never specify that they only apply to arrests by police.
In jurisdictions where it is illegal for a cop to refuse to take a crime report or make an arrest if they see a crime committed, refusal to process a citizen's arrest of an officer would fall under the same category of offense.
All it takes in most places for a mugger to be convicted legitimately of armed robbery is to be armed while robbing; They don't have to draw the weapon, or display it, just possess it. All cops are armed, and they absolutely require a warrant to seize a camera from a bystander; Without that warrant, they become criminals for seizing cameras, and quite a few cameras exceed the monetary value threshold of a felony level offense.
All true -- in theory.
In reality, you're not going to find a prosecutor that would ever bring charges. In fact, if you use ANY force to attempt your citizen's arrest, there is a 100% chance you will be charged with felony assault on a police officer -- after he calls his friends and they all beat you up. After the dust settles, you can bet the only charge left will be your assault charge and various and sundry resisting arrest, failure to obey orders, failure to stop hitting the officer's fist with your face, and so on.
Because the biggest factor in most if not all DA elections is the police union endorsement. You go around prosecuting cops the other guy gets the endorsement and the job next time.
If there's sufficient public outrage they may file charges which quietly get dropped once the furor subsides. In extreme cases the prosecuting attorney gets quietly advised not to try too hard.
No other way to explain how cops like Aaron Mansker and Ivory Webb (Get up! Get up! BOOM BOOM BOOM I told you to stay down!) skate on criminal charges for their unjustified shootings while their cities pay millions to settle the civil cases.
Is it illegal in Pennsylvania for a police officer to say that something is against the law, when it isn't? Does that rise to the level of official misconduct? Or is this more about the officers not "playing nice?"
"So how do you feel about pistol whipping children and shooting the family pet?"
Poorly.
Post new comment