Tuesday, December 22, 2009

LA Sheriff vs photographer (updated twice)

Update: OK, I have to admit I can also see the opposite viewpoint here. If the officer has been told, and has no reason to disbelieve (and why would he?), that photographs are used for scouting before terrorist attacks, then he sincerely believes that he is protecting the public. If you listen to him, while he's out of line when threatening the guy, he really is listening to what the photographer has to say, and trying to understand him. I respect him for that.
----------------

LA Sheriff vs photographer, video.
I guess a badge beefs up an ego.

Neeray says:
Fear and inferiority feeling combined with a uniform and some officially given power is a very contagious disease, worse than any influenza ...
Anyway, Merry Christmas!

And points to this English newspaper article...
Grant Smith, who has 25 years experience documenting buildings by Richard Rogers and Norman Foster, was stopped by a squad of seven officers who pulled up in three cars and a riot van and searched his belongings under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police to stop and search anyone without need for suspicion in a designated area.

The funny thing about police that while they often do a good job and are very nice, sometimes their fear cause them to do total overkill. Seven men to search a peaceful photographer?!

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Terry v. Ohio states if a law enforcement officer has a reasonable suspicion a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime he may stop that person in a public place and demand of the person his identity and his reason for being there; and if the officer has reason to believe his safety requires it, the officer may do an external pat down to seize weapons. Once the officer determines the person's ID and the reason for being there is not in violation of the law, he must let the person go. This stop exceeded constitutional limits. Law does not require the person prove his ID or his reason for being there. Police must prove the reason was unlawful by probable cause.

neeraj said...

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/08/police-search-photographer-terrorism-powers

Fear and inferiority feeling combined with a uniform and some officially given power is a very contagious disease, worse than any influenza ...

Anyway, Merry Christmas!

Anonymous said...

That is the police in the U.S. where it's very easy to become one, and they don't do much in way of psychological testing, etc., to find out if you're the kind of whackjob you would abuse your power. Then again there are psychopaths who can fake being normal and can pass those tests, even a polygraphy.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Update: OK, I have to admit I can also see the opposite viewpoint here. If the officer has been told, and has no reason to disbelieve (and why would he?), that photographs are used for scouting before terrorist attacks, then he sincerely believes that he is protecting the public. If you listen to him, while he's out of line when threatening the guy, he really is listening to what the photographer has to say, and trying to understand him. I respect him for that.