If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
On 2009-04-07 12:30:00 -0700, Chris H said:
In message , J. Clarke writes Paul Bartram wrote: "Dudley Hanks" wrote Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point. In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is, why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images are on a tiny card, not the camera itself? Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded... So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in the world? 99.9% of press photographers use digital They have to. With digital most press photographers can get their images to the news desk in a few minutes. I think that at the Olympics It was estimated by a couple of agencies they could get their photos on to their customers news desks globally within 15 minutes of the picture being taken in the stadium. Other news coverage is similar. So how is going to use film that has to go to a dark room, be developed and printed then scanned to be sent to a news desk? The competition will have got them an hour or two ago. Also with digital the photographer can check their pictures as they take them not an hour later in the dark room when they can not take anymore. And that there are no cameras that store information only as internal memory, not on a card? Name one... I don't know of any that don't use a card. There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory card from the camera will suffice. True. ....and if you are using a D3 with redundant writing to two CF cards, just give him one. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
In message 2009040715443336579-savageduck@savagenet, Savageduck
writes On 2009-04-07 12:30:00 -0700, Chris H said: In message , J. Clarke writes Paul Bartram wrote: "Dudley Hanks" wrote Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point. In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images are on a tiny card, not the camera itself? Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded... So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in the world? 99.9% of press photographers use digital They have to. With digital most press photographers can get their images to the news desk in a few minutes. I think that at the Olympics It was estimated by a couple of agencies they could get their photos on to their customers news desks globally within 15 minutes of the picture being taken in the stadium. Other news coverage is similar. So how is going to use film that has to go to a dark room, be developed and printed then scanned to be sent a news desk? The competition will have got them an hour or two ago. Also with digital the photographer can check their pictures as they take them not an hour later in the dark room when they can not take anymore. And that there are no cameras that store information only as internal memory, not on a card? Name one... I don't know of any that don't use a card. There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory card from the camera will suffice. True. ...and if you are using a D3 with redundant writing to two CF cards, just give him one. I thought of that but I don't have a D3.... OTOH the Fuji 7000S Zoom DSLR look alike had two cards.. An SD and a compact flash and If memory serves (despite what I was saying to the contrary a few posts ago :-) internal memory... However the internal memory was only for 1 or two pictures I think. I suspect the internal memory is normally used as the buffer for the memory cards when not in demo mode. SO it would I presume slow up card writes and the ability to take pictures. I like the WiFi idea because you can transmit the pictures back to a laptop a friend has set up in a cafe. That will be difficult to spot as most cafes are full of people using laptops... at least in UK cites they are. Or back to a laptop in the car which (AFAIK, IANAL) the police will need a warrant to search if it is legally parked and locked. If they can work out what you are doing and which is your car. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
"Chris H" wrote in message ... In message , Chris H writes In message , Martin Brown writes Chris H wrote: The police may want to secure the evidence chain in case there are important images on the camera. True. On the other hand they may want them so there are no awkward photos in the press. In the case in this thread they had shot at some one. Digital images are much easier to fake than classical film so there is good reason for them to want to keep them closely watched until they are sure there is no important evidence on them. That is one reason there are others for the more cynical. And right on cue from the UK counter terrorist NG http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7988828.stm A man who died during the G20 protest was pushed to the ground by a police officer, video footage has shown. Ian Tomlinson, 47, collapsed from a heart attack during protests outside the Bank of England last Wednesday. Newsagent Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, is seen receiving a two-handed push from a police officer. A New York fund manager recorded the footage, saying he came forward with the video because Mr Tomlinson's family "were not getting any answers". _______________ No wonder the police don't like to be filmed! -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ There is no shortage of video footage / still shots showing the Boys in Blue at their worst; as is there many more instances of their heroic efforts. Coming from a family which has produced a few law enforcement officers and military servicemen, my sympathies ultimately coincide with the LEO's. And, of course, my son hopes to join the thinning ranks here in Edmonton within a few years. Given the heated nature of most encounters where the imperitives of the investigation meet the necessity of transparency, one would hope cooler heads prevail, and quickly. But, as I've noted before, every now and then an incident pops up and deliberate, assertive effort must be directed toward protecting our hard-won civil liberties, regardless of whether one is from Canada, the States or Europe. Take Care, Dudley |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2009040715443336579-savageduck@savagenet... On 2009-04-07 12:30:00 -0700, Chris H said: In message , J. Clarke writes Paul Bartram wrote: "Dudley Hanks" wrote Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point. In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is, why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images are on a tiny card, not the camera itself? Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded... So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in the world? 99.9% of press photographers use digital They have to. With digital most press photographers can get their images to the news desk in a few minutes. I think that at the Olympics It was estimated by a couple of agencies they could get their photos on to their customers news desks globally within 15 minutes of the picture being taken in the stadium. Other news coverage is similar. So how is going to use film that has to go to a dark room, be developed and printed then scanned to be sent to a news desk? The competition will have got them an hour or two ago. Also with digital the photographer can check their pictures as they take them not an hour later in the dark room when they can not take anymore. And that there are no cameras that store information only as internal memory, not on a card? Name one... I don't know of any that don't use a card. There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory card from the camera will suffice. True. ...and if you are using a D3 with redundant writing to two CF cards, just give him one. -- Regards, Savageduck Hey, that just might work... Take Care, Dudley |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote Re Another Camera Seized: I can't speak for Canada, but I would imagine the RCMP would maintain a symilar system and if booked the photographer would have that encounter as part of his permanant record. Yes, all police states maintain a similar system. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
"Caesar Romano" wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck wrote Re Another Camera Seized: I can't speak for Canada, but I would imagine the RCMP would maintain a symilar system and if booked the photographer would have that encounter as part of his permanant record. Yes, all police states maintain a similar system. That's funny... Take Care, Dudley |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
On 2009-04-07 16:58:19 -0700, Caesar Romano said:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck wrote Re Another Camera Seized: I can't speak for Canada, but I would imagine the RCMP would maintain a symilar system and if booked the photographer would have that encounter as part of his permanant record. Yes, all police states maintain a similar system. ....and just whereabouts in Alabama is it you live? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:14:20 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote: The person involved is a news reporter. I love the way stories take on new details as the thread progresses. It's like that game in grade school where one child whispers something in another child's ear, and by the time the story gets around the room it has changed completely. According to the newspaper article, he's a photographer. Not a reporter. Unless the newspaper he works for is a weekly advertising broadsheet, as a photographer he doesn't write stories. Surrendering his equipment would result in the community getting a professional summary of the event later than is necessary. How is this in the best interest of the community? Photographs don't provide a professional summary. A photograph is a visual accessory to the news. The article stated that the photographer arrived on the scene after the incident occured. All he could have recorded was the physical scene as he found it. The newspaper would not have delayed publication due to lack of a photograph. Text would provide the professional summary. Photographs were submitted by other people at the scene. There's a photograph in the _Edmunton Journal_ showing of Payne *with* his camera on the scene: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...373/story.html The police were wrong in what they did, but let's not re-write the story to make it a stronger case. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
J. Clarke wrote:
Dudley Hanks wrote: "HEMI-Powered" wrote in message ... Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's a professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So, maybe he spends a couple of hours in lockup; That would have worked to the police's advantage. If he was locked-up, his personal effects - including his camera - would have been taken from him and held. I could have been to the photographer's disadvantage. He would not know if particular images had been deleted while the camera was out of his possession. It sounds like the camera ended up outside his possession for about an hour anyway. Either way, the cops get his camera to themselves, so why not get booked and create a paper trail that has to be accounted for? Without actually booking the guy, no statements go on record, either from the reporter or the officers. With a booking, everything has to be explained and justified. Sorry for not following this thread, but under what circumstances would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty much forever some sort of criminal record even if you never go on trial? Or, are you perhaps suggesting this as a way to provide the proof that the cops at least had the opportunity to mess with the camera images for later use in a civil suit? I'm neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it seems that simply being booked is hardly a definitive statement about what one did or didn't do, and certainly little to do with a camera. I have long held the belief that the hassle and expense of ANY entanglement with cops over alleged First Amendment rights to photograph something is FAR more onerous than just sucking it up and talking nice to everyone involved. I understand that freedom is precious and must be vigorously defended, but the common thought that goes through every one of these debates is that there's some unalienable right to protograph whatever one pleases when it just isn't so - or at least NOT without taking a REAL chance of getting into trouble. And, wrt your point about booking creating a paper trail, doesn't it also provide for the arrested person to accidently incriminate themselves, as well as likely resulting in a HUGE legal bill? Thanks for any further comments you may have to refute my belief that one should "go along to get along". -- HP, aka Jerry Far be it from me to refute your belief; I would adopt the same stance myself in most situations. However, if I were a professional journalist and was being impeded by the police from legitimately performing my duties, I think I would be tempted to push to the limit to retain my freedom. In the States, you have a constitutionally entrenched freedom of speech. In Canada, the press has its rights to document crime scenes similarily entrenched. Hence, any legal proceedings to prosecute journalists for legitimately doing their job would result in judgements that more clearly establish precedents to delineate police authority in such situations. By establishing a paper trail, I simply meant that reports have to be written whenever someone is arrested (booked), and statements have to be recorded, both the statements of those arrested and the statements of the arresting officers. Those statements would then be used in any subsequent court proceedings. If the police can't legally justify the arrest, then, hopefully, disciplinary actions would be taken in order to ensure that a similar abuse of authority would not happen again. Obviously, your average Joe would not have access to similar legal resources as a journalist from one of the large media chains, so compliance might be the best way to go. But, put into a similar situation, I'd be tempted to whip out a digital voice recorder and say, "No, you can't have my camera, but I will give you my name and phone number so that you can serve me with a warrant, should you decide it is necessary. BTW, what is your name and badge number?" Then, stick the recorder in the cop's face and wait for his response. While not exactly on the same scale, I have used this technique with other government officials when my rights have been ignored, and it has almost always resulted in a quick change of attitude... With a cop it might be "Oh, more evidence. I'll have that too, thank you." If it's really an issue of evidence (as opposed to using "evidence" as an excuse to bully you) then the police letting you leave the scene with the camera breaks the chain of custody, which may mean that a criminal walks. "No, I'm not going to give you the camera unless you take it from me by force, but I'll be happy to let one of your forensics people copy the images either here or down at the station" resolves that issue at the cost of your time. Now, if there is something else on the card that might incriminate you or that might lead police to a source to whom you have promised anyonymity or some such then I can see where you might resist this. But witholding real evidence in a criminal case when you are not being harmed in any way other than petty annoyance by providing it, even if it's lawful for you to withhold it, seems to me to be putting your rights before the good of the community. If the cop simply wants me to assist in their investigation by seeing the images I may have captured with my camera, fine, I'll be glad to any way I can. OTOH, trampling on my rights without due cause *is* harm, and I'll gladly spend time in jail, even risk personal injury to defend my rights. My attorney is as good as theirs, and it doesn't cost me a dime to prove that. -- jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
"TonyCooper" wrote in message ... On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:14:20 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" wrote: The person involved is a news reporter. I love the way stories take on new details as the thread progresses. It's like that game in grade school where one child whispers something in another child's ear, and by the time the story gets around the room it has changed completely. According to the newspaper article, he's a photographer. Not a reporter. Unless the newspaper he works for is a weekly advertising broadsheet, as a photographer he doesn't write stories. Surrendering his equipment would result in the community getting a professional summary of the event later than is necessary. How is this in the best interest of the community? Photographs don't provide a professional summary. A photograph is a visual accessory to the news. The article stated that the photographer arrived on the scene after the incident occured. All he could have recorded was the physical scene as he found it. The newspaper would not have delayed publication due to lack of a photograph. Text would provide the professional summary. Photographs were submitted by other people at the scene. There's a photograph in the _Edmunton Journal_ showing of Payne *with* his camera on the scene: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...373/story.html The police were wrong in what they did, but let's not re-write the story to make it a stronger case. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida Sorry, Tony, I know a few photographers who are also reporters / writers, so I tend to treat the two as interchangeable... Take Care, Dudley |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Nikon SLR Camera Kit - Lenses, Camera Body, Camera Bag etc. | Dave | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | February 24th 05 11:34 PM |