Pixiq

It's sad that Steve Key feels he has to praise an officer simply for not being physically abusive.

But what I really have to wonder about is Mike Hiestand. How could someone making statements as dumb as those be working for the SPLC period?

I wonder how Mike Hiestand would react if he was videoing a cop doing something illegal:

"Hey turn that off"
"Oh that's a direct order from a cop, sure no problems"

Moron.

This Jeff Hegg sounds like Johnny Law. What an idiot!

I only heard him say it once early on but each time the cop asked or told him to stop filming, for what ever reason, he should have answered:

"That's irrelevant"

The fire brigade don't want you filming
That irrelevant, it's a public place
I don't want you filming me
That's irrelevant it's a public place
You invading her privacy
This is a public place, there is no privacy in public places
I told you to turn it off
That's irrelevant, I won't, this is a public place
Would you want someone videoing you in an emergency
That's irrelevant, what I want right now is to exercise my right to film in a public place
I'll put you in the back of the car
That's unlawful arrest because this is a public place
It's illegal without permission
In a public place, the first amendment trumps any law you could possibly think of
I don't want you to
So what, go do your job and please step out of my way so I can do mine

"younger officers"? Every hair on that guys head was gray. I do think the reporter made a mistake giving up his i.d. so easily. He should have done the whole "Am I being detained?", "What's your reasonable suspicion?" schpeal.

As a recent college graduate of college, where I was a student journalist for a few years, I can tell you that the Student Press Law Center comment made isn't as stupid as you think it is.

At private universities, even if you have a legal right to photograph, the college can still discipline students for whatever they want.

There was a situation a few years back (on 9/11, 2006, which didn't really matter but the cop seemed to think it did). There was vandalism at one of our research labs that does some "secure" research for DHS. The building was cleared of people, and I had gotten tipped by a student that this was happening. I waited outside with all the faculty. The lead investigator called outside "all clear, you can come in now." I entered the building and shot a photo of the investigators who were still going about their business. The lead investigator then immediately started screaming that I couldn't shoot photography here. He insisted that I turn over the camera and that he would delete the photos. He then demanded that I tell him my tip source or he would arrest me for criminal trespass of a secured building, because I wasn't on some list of people he had.

Standing my ground in this case would have been entirely legal. I know that under 2c(18)(3) in NJ, trespass is only illegal if I had a reasonable expectation that I did not belong, which certainly not the case here. In fact the building has classes regularly throughout the day and students are in and out. However, disrespecting a police officer or whatever could be considered an offense of the disciplinary code. I refused to disclose my source, because having done so would have effected another student's life, but I allowed him to view and delete the photos. I allowed him to do this with the knowledge that I could probably go back and recover the photo later. In fact, we did this and then ran the picture on the front page.

An additional point -- getting arrested by police, even if its wrongful arrest, can still have an impact on job applications for after college. Not every profession sees being arrested for doing journalism as a mark of pride, like many journalists do. I was going to school for Computer Science and I now work at a major bank -- journalism was just a hobby, and one that I didn't want to have impact me in the future.

While I think the student in your post was completely, 100% in the right with what they did, I don't disagree with the SPLC's statement that for student journalists, its often better to not engage but rather comply with the police and then question or file complaints later.

I love the way Jeff Hegg says "I'm gonna talk to your
boss." and then the guy replies "She's coming"
and Hegg's response to that (knowing his scare tactic did not work)is "Well, I won't talk to her!"
Comedy!

"The risk that you have in a situation like this is First Amendment rights don’t outweigh the law. At some point when a police officer gives you a direct order you just don’t have the right, the option, to say ‘I’m just going to refuse that,’ and if you do, there are consequences.”

Last time I checked, the first Amendment is the highest law. For you folks who are unsure, the Constitution was not written for us. It was written for the government; to let them know they don't have the right to infringe on the God given rights. "I assure you that I have many more than these." When you do infringe, "there are consequences".

This is what they are teaching in law school these days? This guy will likely end up being a prosecutor. I guess that they don't cover the Constitution until graduation day. This explains why it's so easy to wipe the floor with these lame ass prosecutorial arguments.

Would you know a police state if you lived in one?

I hate it when officers do that stupid stuff. If he is not getting in the way, don't bother the guy. If he is in the way, make him back up but don't try to get him to stop filming.

The officer was pretty embarrassing to watch. I hope he gets reprimanded for overstepping his authority.

Carlos,

You missed a small typo. Succumb was spelled as subcomb.

And to the comment regarding early graying of the hair -- there was a kid in one of my 10th grade classes whose hair was already progressing towards gray/silver.

I just finished the article and noticed this statement, "[t]he police action is equivalent to bullying and it should not be tolerated in a society that is governed by laws rather than heavy-handedness."

The sad thing is, our society, in my opinion, leans towards governing through heavy-handedness. Just look at the tactics of prosecutors; they levy trumped up charges or use the vast amount of laws we have in place to bring as many charges as possible. This is in the hopes that a plea deal is accepted because they "know" that the person they are bringing charges against has done something wrong.

Unfortunately, in this instance, photography was a crime, but not for any of the reasons the officer said.

This was a polling place, and under Indiana election law, for a member of the media to film in a polling place, they must be appointed by their media outlet as a media watcher, and that must be provided to the court, the election board, and the political parties. The media watcher must also have an identification card issued by the election board.

MEDIA WATCHERS
The media may also appoint watchers to each precinct on Election Day. (IC 3-6-10-1)
Media entitled to name watchers include:
1) each daily, weekly, semiweekly or triweekly newspaper of general circulation in the county.
2) each news service operating in the county (e.g. Associated Press, Network Indiana).
3) each radio or television station operating in the county.
On the day before Election Day each corporation owning a news organization listed above must provide the circuit court clerk, the county election board and the county chairmen of each political party (or independent candidate’s committee), which has appointed watchers with a list of persons appointed to serve as media watchers for the news organizations. An officer of the corporation that owns the news organization must sign this list. A person appointed to act as a media watcher does not have to be a regular employee of the news organization. (IC 3-6-10-2; IC 3-6-10-4)
The county election board must issue identification cards to media watchers. If an individual is named to act as a media watcher in more than one (1) county, the identification card must be obtained from the Election Division. [Form IEC 5(b)] (IC 3-6-10-6)

They didn't want him filming the patient and he ended up not filming the patient. The officer accomplished what he wanted.

Both of them are unexperienced in their careers. Many times, I've shown up on the scene of police actions and was told where and when I could not shoot. I found it easier to not even pay them any mind, engage them in debate and waste time when I could be covering the event. The cop was baited into revealing that he had no just cause to stop him from filming, other than moral grounds. The photographer missed the whole shot because he wanted to debate 1st Amendment rights. We have zoom lenses for a reason. I remember the photo scrums I use to encounter because everyone felt that had to use the widest angle and get nose hairs width from the subject. JMO

Both of them are unexperienced in their careers. Many times, I've shown up on the scene of police actions and was told where and when I could not shoot. I found it easier to not even pay them any mind, engage them in debate and waste time when I could be covering the event. The cop was baited into revealing that he had no just cause to stop him from filming, other than moral grounds. The photographer missed the whole shot because he wanted to debate 1st Amendment rights. We have zoom lenses for a reason. I remember the photo scrums I use to encounter because everyone felt that had to use the widest angle and get nose hairs width from the subject. JMO

If it bleeds, it leads. Media loves to dance in the hardship, pain, death, despair, and blood of others. I can't blame them, a video or recording on a person on the brink of death is always a ratings grabber. Ratings = $$$$$, so the more death, suffering, and despair media can get, the more $$$$ they can make.

What really confuses me is the media outrage when police photos of Nikki Catsouras were leaked to the public. Nikki was a girl who took her dad's sports car and crashed, doing something like 80+MPH, into a toll booth. The police showed up, photos were taken, which were pretty graphic, for the investigation. The photos were shared with a dispatcher, who e-mailed them to a younger relative to show the dangers of driving. Of course that kid e-mailed them all over, and the photos were everywhere before folks knew it.

Every news story I watched about this bashed the state/police for allowing this. However, if this has been a television news station whose own photographer showed up, stood on a public right-of-way, not interfering with the investigation, and filmed, they would be saying the incident was "news," and therefore it would be OK to air the gruesome photos.

Carney may have had a right to catch what could have been death and/or despair of another human being, but it is stuff like this that makes folks upset with the media. As far as 1st Amendment rights, those things are dynamic, and as we see more situations like this, I do wonder how judges will ultimately rule if such actions are protected. Rights have limits, and those limits are decided upon by court rulings. Carney needs to file a lawsuit for the violation of his civil rights, maybe his case will end up in the US Supreme Court and we can get a first/another say in matters such as this.

That cop was dead wrong, reporters film people getting medical treatment EVERY DAY, just turn on the local news and you will see it.

First off, there's no way it's legal to charge him with disobeying a direct order. IF you notice over and over and over again, the guy asked, is that an order, and repeatedly the cop kept saying, "I'm asking" which makes it a request, not an order. I'm suprised no one else has mentioned this on here(unless I simply overlooked it) It was a repeated request, not an order.

Cops just never back down or admit when they're wrong. This cop was so goddamn stupid he should be fired.

You applaud the guy for this??? What you are doing here is really commendable but that guy is just a jackass. Yes, he has the right to film but the EMT was absolutely right. Is it really necessary?

A woman is passed out and vulnerable why do you've to film that? To satisfy your voyeuristic feelings?

Just because you've a right doesn't mean you HAVE to exercise it all the time.