There's a point I believe a number of people seem to be missing here:
Everyone's basic civil rights are being threatened because parents and police are paranoid. Period. There really is no other way to put it. I place much of the blame for this on the 24-hour news cycle, with its emphasis on taking local murders of white blond women, and local disappearances of children, and turning them into obsessively covered national stories. Yes, there are perverts who roam the land looking for children to snatch - but they usually get the children by asking for help finding a lost puppy, or by offering candy - remember that one - not by taking pictures. And yes, there are child pornographers- but as Damon noted, they rarely spend their time focusing a photos of kids in street clothes hanging out on corners. And as for those who abuse and murder children - usually they are the parents, uncles, cousins, close family friends - or priests - of those children, and not some doofus with a camera (sorry Ben :-) )
Oh, and Ryan, what the "general public" thinks should be irrelevant here. What matters is what the U.S. Constitution, and federal and state laws say.
There's a point I believe a number of people seem to be missing here:
Everyone's basic civil rights are being threatened because parents and police are paranoid. Period. There really is no other way to put it. I place much of the blame for this on the 24-hour news cycle, with its emphasis on taking local murders of white blond women, and local disappearances of children, and turning them into obsessively covered national stories. Yes, there are perverts who roam the land looking for children to snatch - but they usually get the children by asking for help finding a lost puppy, or by offering candy - remember that one - not by taking pictures. And yes, there are child pornographers- but as Damon noted, they rarely spend their time focusing a photos of kids in street clothes hanging out on corners. And as for those who abuse and murder children - usually they are the parents, uncles, cousins, close family friends - or priests - of those children, and not some doofus with a camera (sorry Ben :-) )
Oh, and Ryan, what the "general public" thinks should be irrelevant here. What matters is what the U.S. Constitution, and federal and state laws say.
So Ben not only gets cuffed and searched but now he is being called a Doofus .
I hope you will laugh about this soon Ben.
About parents being more paranoid B.D. absolutely--100% in every way possible. It is the media, rumors on facebook, twitter whatever, it's easy to spread paranoia these days and who hasn't heard tons of "stories".
The internet makes it easy to search for sex offenders too--I have 18 in my neighborhood (not that they are all bad, one was a kid 18 who had sex with a minor of 16 not against her will). But this numer crosses my mind often 18 of them within a few blocks radius.
There was a man doing just what b.d said offering candy to kids at the school just last month, the little girl ran inside, cops were called and the guy disappeared (no one but the kid saw him, so who knows if it is true, but all parents were called about it). Last year my child, then 8 was in our front yard and he told me a man gave him candy as he walked by. I asked why didn't you run away screaming, he said "he said hi and stuck his hand out and I just took the candy"--he tells me this a couple of days after it happened and he hasn't seen him again.
Now as to the photography, you are right, likely molestors probably don't want fully clothed kids in the park--however, one of my kids photos on flickr was lifted and added as a favorite--no identity (blocky head) so I looked at his profile, he had no photos of his own at all, no name, no info, he only favorited others photos(which means he can reaccess them at any time) and it was only kids--just kids, all little girls, at the beach, in the park, on the street, photos of their hair, their mouths, the backview (he chose these portraits of others kids)--nothing provacative in any of the shots, yet taken as a whole it sent shivers down my spine, made me wonder what it was used for. Is there some guys masturbating to my little girl's photos of her eating icecream outside? it just makes you sick, but I'm the one that put that photo out there!
But back to the street photographer, what if it's some psycho who is sort of "casing the kids out".
I can't help and look at this from a mother's point of view equally split w/ a street photographer's view.
I remain torn. I strongly feel that he should not be asked to destroy his card as was suggested, I don't think he should have been cuffed, I don't think the first words out of the cop's mouth should have been "are you a child molestor?". However, I do think that it would not be wrong for them to ask why? I also don't think it would be bad for a parent/teacher to just go up to the photographer and ask why they are taking photos, but I can imagine that not ending well "what the hell areyou doing taking photos of my kid you freaking perv!".
I see both sides to this and I remain a street photographer through and through, but I will always be a mother also, albeit a paranoid one, you nailed it B.D.
What matters is what the U.S. Constitution, and federal and state laws say.
I'd certainly agree with that, as well as with the rest of BD's description of how all this came to pass. But the danger is that if the paranoia level rises high enough there's a possibility that the laws, even the Constitution, might change. Remember prohibition. That 24 hour news cycle isn't going to go away, and a kid being molested or murdered is always going to be at the top of the "if it bleeds, it leads" approach to news. Out on the street you'll have a hard time finding anybody who has a clue about the Constitution or the laws in general, and rationality isn't the usual reaction when a parent feels his kid might be in danger.
It might be worth Ben's time to go talk to somebody: not so much to complain as to find out what could lead to being cuffed without notice and whether or not that's standard procedure in a situation like this where no law was broken. If the approach is reason rather than complaint Ben might even get somebody in the hierarchy to look into what happened. But attacking the situation in anger is going to cause the gate to come slamming down. Might make you feel better, but it's not a way to get through to the cops whose butts are always on the line.
Not even sure what to say here. I doubt pedophiles are going to be interested in regular shots of kids wearing street clothes. It's pure insanity to throw away our civil rights on such baseless fears...
None whatsoever. If they were, Google Images would be way easier
What I find the most frustrating is that it's been shown repeatedly that children are most often abused by those close to them, but we Americans still chase the myth of the rapist in the bushes...
You should really check this guy out ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Alcala
How do think he loured his victims ? It certainty wasn't by offering them a piece of candy.
Hundreds of children go missing every year never to be heard from again. So to say that parents fears are baseless is just plain wrong. BTW I am not advocating people through away their rights but people need to be cautious about photographing children . You don't know what the circumstances are when children get abducted just because you can't see any proof.
Liz: (street shooting in the park while my kids played, which I have done before). is a NO NO and if I were you I would cease and never admit to doing it - When at a park where your kids are playing, BE CERTAIN THAT YOUR CARD ONLY CONTAINS recognizable PHOTOS OF YOUR KIDS - All other photos should not have recognizable images.
As far as the statement concerning Mrs. Parks - they were dealing with an adult and not a minor - no contest.
I agree, I would not like to be cuffed before being questioned, however, saftey seams to be more important to all involved rather than knowing what is happening.
Just for the record - because of this problem I and many of my photographer friends have stopped taking photos of school sports. I have some photos of kids at the local skate board location - but no faces in any shot.
Street photography is great, but not like it was in the 1950 and 1960's when you could position yourself on a park bench and shoot the afternoon away without any repercussion.
Ask yourself this. In the OP's original comments, and those that follow, remove the worde "picture," and replace it with "listen."
Is it a crime to listen to kids? I could sit on a sidewalk, watch and listen, and write a news story or a column or anything else, describing to the very finest detail of my skillsets, what I had seen.
Is that illegal?
If we, as photographers, don't start standing up for our legal rights, we will, frankly, be screwed. And teh cowardice and near-sighted self-righteousness of those who miss the OP's ordeal sickens me. Christ, we're recorders of history. Or, at least, we can be. And if we do not have the right to do as we always have done - because we capture images with DSLR's and good zoom lenses in an era of cell-phone cameras and minicameras - where are our respective countries going to go?
Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
Hundreds of children go missing every year never to be heard from again. So to say that parents fears are baseless is just plain wrong. BTW I am not advocating people through away their rights but people need to be cautious about photographing children . You don't know what the circumstances are when children get abducted just because you can't see any proof.
The overwhelming majority of child disappearance cases in the US are due to runaways and custody disputes. The most recent figures show that the number abducted by strangers is on the order of 100 per year, about half of whom are found murdered. There are approximately 50,000,000 children in the US, which means that despite the screaming headlines, the chances are about one in half a million that a kid will be abducted. A child today is 20 times more likely to drown and 40 times more likely to die in a car accident than to be killed by a stranger.
Given all that, I think it's reasonable to ask whether having cops hassle Ben (or other photographers) is a sane use of public resources. More lives would be saved by having stricter enforcement of seat-belt laws.
I don't think the first words out of the cop's mouth should have been "are you a child molestor?". However, I do think that it would not be wrong for them to ask why?
Yeah it would. I would view it akin to asking minorities what's going on, just to make sure they aren't causing any trouble. Regardless of howyou word it, you're asking if they're a pedophile. Your marginalizing a perfectly legitimate group because of silly fears.
From a pragmatic standpoint, what are they going to answer? Say they're talking pictures of children for their perverse collection? That's not the kind of thing one casually admits to a cop.
Hundreds of children go missing every year never to be heard from again. So to say that parents fears are baseless is just plain wrong.
10,000 children are hospitalized with brain injuries from sports each year. 2,000 drown and 1,300 are killed in gun accidents. 2,000 children are killed in car accidents, and 250,000 sustain further injuries.
My point being yeah, there are freak accidents. Sometimes you're walking home from the grocery store, a crazy guy stabs you, and you die on the sidewalk. It really sucks, but that's life; these occurances are so freakishly uncommon it makes no sense to live your life around it.
Another observation:
I've never had too much trouble taking pictures at parks. But I'm young, stylish, and often have my girlfriend with me. Is it right for older or less attractive people to be harassed because they fit the public perception of a pedophile why I don't? No, it's discrimination, and it's ridiculously awful. Just like our (hopefully waning) paranoia about Muslims, it's desperation to put a face on an unidentifiable terror, and Benjamin, others, and to a degree men in general have really gotten the short end of the stick on this one.
The overwhelming majority of child disappearance cases in the US are due to runaways and custody disputes. The most recent figures show that the number abducted by strangers is on the order of 100 per year, about half of whom are found murdered. There are approximately 50,000,000 children in the US, which means that despite the screaming headlines, the chances are about one in half a million that a kid will be abducted. A child today is 20 times more likely to drown and 40 times more likely to die in a car accident than to be killed by a stranger.
Given all that, I think it's reasonable to ask whether having cops hassle Ben (or other photographers) is a sane use of public resources. More lives would be saved by having stricter enforcement of seat-belt laws.
+1 x 10 Exactly Richard - facts trump superstition and paranoia every time.
If you have 23 minutes and are not easily offended by coarse language, watch this episode of Penn and Teller Bulls**t titled Stranger Danger. It is an irreverent, humorous (if you get their humor), and informative tale of where we have come to on this issue. Warning! it contains explicit language.
The overwhelming majority of child disappearance cases in the US are due to runaways and custody disputes. The most recent figures show that the number abducted by strangers is on the order of 100 per year, about half of whom are found murdered. There are approximately 50,000,000 children in the US, which means that despite the screaming headlines, the chances are about one in half a million that a kid will be abducted. A child today is 20 times more likely to drown and 40 times more likely to die in a car accident than to be killed by a stranger.
Given all that, I think it's reasonable to ask whether having cops hassle Ben (or other photographers) is a sane use of public resources. More lives would be saved by having stricter enforcement of seat-belt laws.
I don't disagree with you.Some parents worry way to much about things they haven't any control over and don't worry enough about things they do have control over regarding their children's safety.
Whether or not peoples fears are unrealistic or not ,they are still fears and if someone reports something to the police they are obliged to investigate.Its not so much about the numbers but more about the culture we live in. Then their are the police who are afraid for their safety,meanwhile they have been trained in self defense ,plus they carry guns,mace, and knives . If they are that paralyzed by fear, then maybe some of them should just get jobs at Tim Horton's.
I think Ben handled this well and nobody got hurt physically and that's a good thing.
No one should be harassed for any reason and if they are they should lay charges.
Situations can get way out of hand. This reminds me of a guy at one of our airports a few years ago who was literally beat up and tazered to death, by about six police. Why? Because the police over-reacted to what? The guy was afraid,confused and didn't speak English and was only here to visit his mother. Its best to just cooperate and follow up on it afterwards.
Lensmole has it correct. However this 76 year old guy will still follow his own rules conserning child street photography.
For those who want to read about some history - continue on. I am one of 4 boys all within 3 years of each other, my mother would tell us on Saturday and Sunday Morning, after breakfeast - "Go play in the ball field" , it was two streets from our home. "Come home for lunch when you see the sun up on your head - 12:00 O'Clock". "Don't want lunch, I call you when it is time for dinner." Off we would go to play with our friends from the neighborhood, Soccer, BaseBall, Stick Ball. How did we know we were due home - listen for your parent calling your name in the loudest voice possible. My friends always made fun of the method - "Edawood comea home." (Edward come home for dinner). Now tell me what parent would do the same in these times. No adult supervision, just a group of kids having fun. The only incident I remember was when my younger brother was hit by an auto while riding the family bike. He was not injured but he came home carrying the bike in 3 pieces - total destruction.
With this tale I leave you all to continue the great discourse of Police, Minors and Photographer's rights - I must say each new entry is interesting.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around what the officers were thinking.
They probably got a call/complaint about a guy taking pictures of kids. No big deal on the surface and they identify and approach. What happens next is beyond my comprehension. Any half-way decent officer would have asked a few simple questions first. The fact that you were man-handled I can't understand. Yet being frisked, equipment taken, and cuffed I can understand - but the why is stumping me.
Officers of virtually every jurisdiction can act on 'reasonable suspicion', ie: they receive a call and they find something to warrant further investigation/questioning. This is a lesser standard then 'probable cause' where they believe based on witness accounts/personal observations an actual crime has been committed. Unless there actually is some archaic city ordinance prohibiting the capture of images of kids, you can toss any probable cause out the window leaving reasonable suspicion to work with.
With reasonable suspicion, the officer can generally ask for identification as well as perform a Terry Frisk (basically an external pat-down of the clothing in a quick assessment for weapons). This is a well established court case allowing this. If warranted, the officer also generally has the right, but not the requirement, to handcuff the individual in the name of officer and individual security. Situations like this could include a single unit officer waiting on a secondary officer. Taking the equipment is actually again for protection of both parties, but more for the protection/security of the gear itself. But so far it's still by the book although a bit heavy handed in my opinion.
I'm perplexed by the man-handling as presented as well as the forceful questioning without giving you any information up front such as 1)I'm officer x of the y police department, 2)The reason for the contact is z. Now that REASON would be the interesting part of the equation to me, and I believe that's what the general comment thus far is about.
I suppose I would have been fairly compliant as I know you will not win should it go downhill. You may beat the rap, but not the ride. Yet I would have asked a couple basic questions to include 1) Am I free to leave?, 2) If not, why the detention? I don't buy the "just doing my job" response they provided. They are not very good at it IMO.
The fact that you were handcuffed and not able to leave implies a custodial arrest for the most part. If they looked at the contents of your camera card without a signed judges warrant, they've violated yet another big one. Does this rise to the level of a constitutional civil rights violation? Could, but there isn't a judge in this country that would let it get far. And that's the real shame.
Don't get me wrong... There's a lot of good officers out there. But there's some who should be doing other things.
OK I've thought about this for long enough and with the help of all your comments here's how I see it.
About Me:
I'm proud of myself for keeping control and not allowing this incident to get out of hand.
All though the Cops controlled my movements, I controlled the Atmosphere and overall outcome.
I believe the fact that I was back to my normal life in an hour is testament to that.
I am also at peace with my own innocence in this matter.
Meaning I am not the Sicko they were seeking.
I am surely a Doofus because, all though I was within my rights to take images as I did,
I should not be so Cavalier about those rights. That is nearly as bad as abusing those rights.
I must remember that I live with all of you in a real and sometimes dangerous/sick World.
Rights need to be balanced (I believe) with the reality we occupy.
I to am a Grand Parent and have felt the numbing nausea thinking of such terror befalling one
of mine.
About the Cops:
They felt (at least for the 1st few moments) they had themselves a real Bad Guy! Hence the
initial grabbing of arms, cuffing, etc.
These were undercover Cops that detained me, from that I gathered there must be something
going on in this area and as my Title says, Ben was just "Wrong Time Wrong Place."
Although I was being physically detained, it was civil and respectful.
It was also by no means Violent in actions or voice.
Could they of handled it better/different, Of course.
They could simply of waited for me to get on my bike, call a B&W to make a traffic stop.
From there they could of gotten all the info they needed, no muss no fuss and me none the
wiser. All the more reason for me to believe there was some urgency in there actions.
Bottom line here, I hope they catch the right one.
Will he ever shoot again:
Well I might concentrate on more Mature subject matter
BJ: Great statement and come back. However, you have opened a new kettle of worms with the flower photo - one of my favorite subjects to shoot - see: Photoman74.Smugmug.com I hope an attorney would chime in and give the rights photographers have when posting Flower photos they have taken which they hope to sell prints of. My understanding is that the photographer does not have the copyright for the photo - I hope I am wrong.
OK I've thought about this for long enough and with the help of all your comments here's how I see it.
About Me:
I'm proud of myself for keeping control and not allowing this incident to get out of hand.
All though the Cops controlled my movements, I controlled the Atmosphere and overall outcome.
I believe the fact that I was back to my normal life in an hour is testament to that.
I am also at peace with my own innocence in this matter.
Meaning I am not the Sicko they were seeking.
I am surely a Doofus because, all though I was within my rights to take images as I did,
I should not be so Cavalier about those rights. That is nearly as bad as abusing those rights.
I must remember that I live with all of you in a real and sometimes dangerous/sick World.
Rights need to be balanced (I believe) with the reality we occupy.
I to am a Grand Parent and have felt the numbing nausea thinking of such terror befalling one
of mine.
About the Cops:
They felt (at least for the 1st few moments) they had themselves a real Bad Guy! Hence the
initial grabbing of arms, cuffing, etc.
These were undercover Cops that detained me, from that I gathered there must be something
going on in this area and as my Title says, Ben was just "Wrong Time Wrong Place."
Although I was being physically detained, it was civil and respectful.
It was also by no means Violent in actions or voice.
Could they of handled it better/different, Of course.
They could simply of waited for me to get on my bike, call a B&W to make a traffic stop.
From there they could of gotten all the info they needed, no muss no fuss and me none the
wiser. All the more reason for me to believe there was some urgency in there actions.
Bottom line here, I hope they catch the right one.
This is a far different version of what you originally posted. This version is like the battered woman syndrome. I didn't cook dinner or clean the house, it was my own fault.
BULL!
What people don't get is that we in America have more rights than most people on the planet, but and this is important....we have far less rights today than 10 or 20 years ago. We have been sacrificing rights for perceived safety.
If you want to continue to have these right we all must stand up and fight for them! NOTE: "fight for them" does not mean physically or violently. But as an example Ben has (apparently) rationalized that while he has done nothing wrong he was at fault and accepts this treatment. No complaints, no investigation, no contemplating laws and rights need be be done by the police dept, and this behavior will continue and fast become the departments culture.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about taking photos in a public space, period. There is no such thing (yet) as the thought police. What is the rational for grabbing someone who is not violating any laws, throwing them on car hood, handcuffing them, and accusing them of crimes not in evidence, or of crimes of thought?
If as a society we accept this treatment, then expect it to not only continue but to get worse.
That said......we and the police ideally should be partners working together not adversaries.
If approached and spoken to in a polite manner I would certainly recommend responding in a like manner. Even though I have no obligation to answer why I am taking photos I would try my best to explain. Again we are not supposed to be enemies.
BJ: Great statement and come back. However, you have opened a new kettle of worms with the flower photo - one of my favorite subjects to shoot - see: Photoman74.Smugmug.com I hope an attorney would chime in and give the rights photographers have when posting Flower photos they have taken which they hope to sell prints of. My understanding is that the photographer does not have the copyright for the photo - I hope I am wrong.
OK..I do not understand this post.
What do you mean "the photographer does not have the copyright?"
Are you referring to American law, or some other country?
Not trying to start an argument here, but I'm really having a hard time seeing how Ben's rights were violated. Because we don't know what the police were thinking, we don't know what facts the police used to determine Ben might be breaking the law. We can only make guesses. Ben could certainly call the police department and ask. I hope he does. However, he might need a lawyer to get an actual answer. Unless Ben is a very wealthy individual, that's probably not likely to occur.
Where the battleground is, in my opinion, sits with what is considered "reasonable suspicion." That has been interpreted so broadly post 9/11 that you can be frisked for just about anything. In New York they've thrown caution to the wind and do it openly without any justification at all. The vast majority of stop and frisks in that town are due to "furtive movement" (looking sneaky, basically). So far no one has been able to stop them. My understanding is that the public largely supports these types of aggressive tactics. Therefore, we are unlikely to generate the political will necessary to turn the tide. Humanity has been down this road many times in our history. It is a well trodden path. No one has figured out a good way of stopping it, that I know of.
What people don't get is that we in America have more rights than most people on the planet, but and this is important....we have far less rights today than 10 or 20 years ago. We have been sacrificing rights for perceived safety.
If you want to continue to have these right we all must stand up and fight for them! NOTE: "fight for them" does not mean physically or violently. But as an example Ben has (apparently) rationalized that while he has done nothing wrong he was at fault and accepts this treatment. No complaints, no investigation, no contemplating laws and rights need be be done by the police dept, and this behavior will continue and fast become the departments culture.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about taking photos in a public space, period. There is no such thing (yet) as the thought police. What is the rational for grabbing someone who is not violating any laws, throwing them on car hood, handcuffing them, and accusing them of crimes not in evidence, or of crimes of thought?
If as a society we accept this treatment, then expect it to not only continue but to get worse.
That said......we and the police ideally should be partners working together not adversaries.
If approached and spoken to in a polite manner I would certainly recommend responding in a like manner. Even though I have no obligation to answer why I am taking photos I would try my best to explain. Again we are not supposed to be enemies.
Sam
Hear, hear, Sam. You're the first person I've run across in a long time willing to come right out and say we had more rights 10 or 20 years ago. How about 70 years ago? When I was 12 and it was summertime I used to get on a streetcar, go downtown in Detroit, and wander all over the place on my own... Spend all day -- sometimes shooting pictures with my box camera, sometimes just watching what was going on. Nowadays, if I were living in the suburb where I grew up I wouldn't go downtown in Detroit by myself with less than a quad fifty mounted on a hummer. How's that for a loss of rights? Even in the sixties you didn't have to worry much about letting your kids run around out of your sight. But not any more. So you're right, Ben had every legal right to shoot those pictures, but Ben also learned you have to be careful because of the wretched times we live in.
If you want an interesting take on how far and why we've come down from what we had even 50 years ago, find a copy of Charles Murray's book, Coming Apart. He describes what's happened and how far it's gone but unfortunately he doesn't have an answer to the question: "how do we fix it?"
...In New York they've thrown caution to the wind and do it openly without any justification at all.
That is an incorrect statement. Their justification for a Terry frisk is for Officer safety as held up under scrutiny a bazillion times in court. Justification is not required other than a possibility the subject in question might have weapons on their person. In other words, you're not likely to see someone is tight shorts/t-shirt get a pat-down. The bulkier the clothes, the higher the probability dependent on the situation. And if they reach into a pocket under the guise of a Terry frisk, they have violated your civil rights under Search and Seizure. But to pat down the exterior of your person - legitimate.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but having been on that side of the fence it's not the officers making these decisions. It's the courts and the Terry frisk is a tool granted by the courts. Now, do some abuse that? Sure.
I don't feel battered, Sam not in the least.
I did fight and got my life back in an hour.
I'm filing a complaint with the Butler Ave Station where these officers work out of.
You know during the time I was being investigated on the public street,
i did not see any civilians coming to my defense and protest my treatment!
Had you of been there would you join me?
Would you have me become the Hero of this new Revolution and don my three point hat and knee boots.
Mount my trusty Steed and wave my Saber as I gather up more more like minded heros.
Will you be waiting for me?
Shall I spent all I have and all I will ever have in $$$$ to pursue this righteous quest.
Will you loan $$$ ?
Shall I move my family out of harms way, as the Enemy comes calling
Will you put me up and become an accessory?
Sam, I did what I had to, cause I'm an alone and weak in this quest.
My conclusion to what happened is based on the Reality of Life for ME!
Show me how to be this Hero and Win this righteous battle and I'll
be your, "Huckleberry".
That is an incorrect statement. Their justification for a Terry frisk is for Officer safety as held up under scrutiny a bazillion times in court. Justification is not required other than a possibility the subject in question might have weapons on their person. In other words, you're not likely to see someone is tight shorts/t-shirt get a pat-down. The bulkier the clothes, the higher the probability dependent on the situation. And if they reach into a pocket under the guise of a Terry frisk, they have violated your civil rights under Search and Seizure. But to pat down the exterior of your person - legitimate.
If I understand what you're saying, if we could be a fly on the wall in a NYPD police cruiser we might hear a conversation go down like this?
"Hey! Do you see that guy over there! He is wearing a coat. I bet if we had some reason to stop him he could possibly have a weapon concealed in his pocket."
"You're right Officer Jones. That is pretty suspicious. Let's grab him and investigate!"
To me, that kind of justification sounds like no justification at all.
Please feel free to post any reworks you do of my images. Crop, skew, munge, edit, share. Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
Ben, thanks for reminding us that we walk a fine line. It's really a sad statement about society and the fear that is out there. I can understand people wanting to be protective of children but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't think about your rights as well. I applaud you for keeping your cool. I'm not sure if I could have done the same.
I don't feel battered, Sam not in the least.
I did fight and got my life back in an hour.
I'm filing a complaint with the Butler Ave Station where these officers work out of.
I am reading a lot of conflicting statements in your various posts? That said, I didn't read about any fight back, and you got your life back because they gave it back. Filing a complaint is good.
You know during the time I was being investigated on the public street,
i did not see any civilians coming to my defense and protest my treatment!
Had you of been there would you join me?
I would not have joined. I would have observed / photographed (if I had my camera) and been a witness if asked.
Would you have me become the Hero of this new Revolution and don my three point hat and knee boots.
Mount my trusty Steed and wave my Saber as I gather up more more like minded heros.
Will you be waiting for me?
Shall I spent all I have and all I will ever have in $$$$ to pursue this righteous quest.
Will you loan $$$ ?
Shall I move my family out of harms way, as the Enemy comes calling
Will you put me up and become an accessory?
Most of the above is nonsense. It is not about a WAY WAY overused and little understood word 'hero"!!!
It is about defending your rights. No one is asking or expecting a single individual to take something like this to the Supreme Court. But again if you and I do nothing expect more of the same.
Sam, I did what I had to, cause I'm an alone and weak in this quest.
My conclusion to what happened is based on the Reality of Life for ME!
I understand. It is hard to put yourself at risk. Much easier to wait and hope someone else fights for your rights. Do realize there are a lot of LEOs who understand the constitution and are working to maintain our rights. So hopefully you support the legitimate non violent effort to keep our constitutional rights. Please wish us success.
Show me how to be this Hero and Win this righteous battle and I'll
be your, "Huckleberry"
OK, I admit my ignorance here. I have no idea what a huckleberry is?
Not trying to start an argument here, but I'm really having a hard time seeing how Ben's rights were violated. Because we don't know what the police were thinking, we don't know what facts the police used to determine Ben might be breaking the law. We can only make guesses. Ben could certainly call the police department and ask. I hope he does. However, he might need a lawyer to get an actual answer. Unless Ben is a very wealthy individual, that's probably not likely to occur.
Where the battleground is, in my opinion, sits with what is considered "reasonable suspicion." That has been interpreted so broadly post 9/11 that you can be frisked for just about anything. In New York they've thrown caution to the wind and do it openly without any justification at all. The vast majority of stop and frisks in that town are due to "furtive movement" (looking sneaky, basically). So far no one has been able to stop them. My understanding is that the public largely supports these types of aggressive tactics. Therefore, we are unlikely to generate the political will necessary to turn the tide. Humanity has been down this road many times in our history. It is a well trodden path. No one has figured out a good way of stopping it, that I know of.
Discussing and arguing is quite acceptable in my opinion. That's how we present our view points.
Lets see, based on Ben's account he was walking down the street, had not done anything illegal, no witness claimed to have observed him commit any crime. Then two police officers grab him put him face down on the hood of a car, handcuff him, yell at him accusing him of being a pedophile, detain him for an hour , and you don't see any constitutional rights violated???
You try and justify this behavior based on what the officers were thinking??? I don't care what they were thinking, or claim to be thinking! I want to hear and see facts. Nothing I have read about this incident would justify the police actions.
OH you don't need a lawyer to tell what your constitutional rights are. The constitution was written for the people, me / you / etc. it was not written in shyster code.
But do realize the more people who accept this as normal will only encourage this type of behavior along with the elimination of our constitutional rights.
I don't feel battered, Sam not in the least. I did fight and got my life back in an hour. I'm filing a complaint with the Butler Ave Station where these officers work out of.
I am reading a lot of conflicting statements in your various posts? That said, I didn't read about any fight back, and you got your life back because they gave it back. Filing a complaint is good.
You know during the time I was being investigated on the public street, i did not see any civilians coming to my defense and protest my treatment! Had you of been there would you join me?
I would not have joined. I would have observed / photographed (if I had my camera) and been a witness if asked.
Would you have me become the Hero of this new Revolution and don my three point hat and knee boots. Mount my trusty Steed and wave my Saber as I gather up more more like minded heros. Will you be waiting for me?
Shall I spent all I have and all I will ever have in $$$$ to pursue this righteous quest. Will you loan $$$ ?
Shall I move my family out of harms way, as the Enemy comes calling Will you put me up and become an accessory?
Most of the above is nonsense. It is not about a WAY WAY overused and little understood word 'hero"!!! It is about defending your rights. No one is asking or expecting a single individual to take something like this to the Supreme Court. But again if you and I do nothing expect more of the same.
Sam, I did what I had to, cause I'm an alone and weak in this quest. My conclusion to what happened is based on the Reality of Life for ME!
I understand. It is hard to put yourself at risk. Much easier to wait and hope someone else fights for your rights. Do realize there are a lot of LEOs who understand the constitution and are working to maintain our rights. So hopefully you support the legitimate non violent effort to keep our constitutional rights. Please wish us success.
Show me how to be this Hero and Win this righteous battle and I'll be your, "Huckleberry"
OK, I admit my ignorance here. I have no idea what a huckleberry is?
Sam
No I'm the one that must plead ignorance.
What should I of done or not done during this or after this incident?
Everyday Sam I fight for my "Rights", maybe not always for the "Cause".
As far as conflicting statements, you don't think this incident has not left me conflicted?
No I'm the one that must plead ignorance.
What should I of done or not done during this or after this incident?
Everyday Sam I fight for my "Rights", maybe not always for the "Cause".
As far as conflicting statements, you don't think this incident has not left me conflicted?
Ben,
Please let me be very clear, I am glad you didn't try to physically resist and that you were not physically injured.
What to do can be a difficult question to answer, but I can say without qualification you / I / we can not accept this behavior.
If anyone wants to say yea I object but I am afraid so I will run and hide under the table, I would understand and that is an honest statement, but if we all take that attitude we is doomed.
I have already stated what I would do.
Benjamin,
Disclaimer: Assuming all happened they way you tell it, you handled it far better than I would have!
If politely questioned by police I will absolutely cooperate and answer most (reasonable /pertinent) questions. They have a job to do.
If however I was grabbed, handcuffed, etc. I would only identify myself, inform them I will not consent to any searches, ask if I am under arrest, what the charges are, ask if I am free to go. I will not answer questions or respond positively to intimidation. I won't physically resist or get into a physical confrontation.
I will however assert my rights as we all should.
Further I would try to make an appointment to see the police chief or perhaps another HIGH ranking police official. I would not take any lawyers or threaten law suits etc. I would try to discuss this in a way where I have expressed my concerns and see what their attitude is. If they have a positive attitude and see the error it can be a win, win for everybody. The goal here is to have a positive dialog about the issue with a positive outcome.
If however they want to defend their actions and try to blow me off I would file a formal complaint, contact the local news papers and TV news, as well as send a copy of the complaint to the ACLU.
That's really all we can do with an incident like this. They would have a formal complaint on file, the incident would have been made public, and they would know you objected and don't accept this type of behavior.
Also remember it's not just your complaint but the total from all citizens. If there are a lot of complaints they almost have to change their ways. But lets say they don't change and someone is seriously injured or killed they will not have the defense of we do this all the time, nobody complained, we didn't know our officers were doing this. Now that we know we will change and retrain everyone.
Not trying to start an argument here, but I'm really having a hard time seeing how Ben's rights were violated. Because we don't know what the police were thinking, we don't know what facts the police used to determine Ben might be breaking the law. We can only make guesses. Ben could certainly call the police department and ask. I hope he does. However, he might need a lawyer to get an actual answer. Unless Ben is a very wealthy individual, that's probably not likely to occur.
Where the battleground is, in my opinion, sits with what is considered "reasonable suspicion." That has been interpreted so broadly post 9/11 that you can be frisked for just about anything. In New York they've thrown caution to the wind and do it openly without any justification at all. The vast majority of stop and frisks in that town are due to "furtive movement" (looking sneaky, basically). So far no one has been able to stop them. My understanding is that the public largely supports these types of aggressive tactics. Therefore, we are unlikely to generate the political will necessary to turn the tide. Humanity has been down this road many times in our history. It is a well trodden path. No one has figured out a good way of stopping it, that I know of.
Specifically about his rights, using only Ben's account and avoiding "what ifs" or speculation, my reading of CAL statute, CAL case law, and US Supreme Court opinion tells me the police exceeded their authority (violated his rights) by going directly to detainment and seizure without "reasonable suspicion" - which must be articulated and based on objective facts and not just a "hunch" on the part of police. They should have questioned him un-detained and then (and only then) escalate to detainment/seizure based on the reasonable suspicion that he had, or was about to commit a crime.
There is a famous case from here in San Diego, Kolender v. Lawson, that helped establish the rights of a citizen who is just walking down the sidewalk doing nothing suspicious or illegal. IMO no reasonable observer can construe a man with a camera on a public sidewalk (as described in Ben's account) as meeting the legal threshold of "reasonable suspicion"
I'm sorry Ryan, but I respectfully reject your assertions that there is no history of victory over tyranny, nor a public will to do so - such ignores a long list of efforts - many, but not all successful - to secure Liberty, Equality, and Justice for individuals to nations. It is a whole different discussion.
If I understand what you're saying, if we could be a fly on the wall in a NYPD police cruiser we might hear a conversation go down like this?
"Hey! Do you see that guy over there! He is wearing a coat. I bet if we had some reason to stop him he could possibly have a weapon concealed in his pocket."
"You're right Officer Jones. That is pretty suspicious. Let's grab him and investigate!"
To me, that kind of justification sounds like no justification at all.
Actually, I've been quite deliberate in not getting into specific details since I was not there. I eluded to what was presented as well as what the officers can generally under color of law perform, specifically the Terry frisk which is for weapons.
However, you are not too far off point as a tremendous number of big stops are made by what you describe. It goes more like "Hmmm. Officer Smith, do you think that Escalade/tinted windows/24" rims driving 5mph in front of that house looks suspicious at 3am"? Officer Jones says "yep - hey look. The license plate light is out". Bingo. Probable cause as they did in fact observe a traffic code violation so the traffic stop ensues. Terry frisks would be common, but the bigger picture is they targeted a vehicle and found a violation to make the stop on a fishing expedition.
In Ben's case, they probably received a call about a male subject with a camera and he fit the description. I highly doubt they went looking for a guy with a camera and bulky clothes just to go on a fishing expedition for what was in his pockets.
Comments
Everyone's basic civil rights are being threatened because parents and police are paranoid. Period. There really is no other way to put it. I place much of the blame for this on the 24-hour news cycle, with its emphasis on taking local murders of white blond women, and local disappearances of children, and turning them into obsessively covered national stories. Yes, there are perverts who roam the land looking for children to snatch - but they usually get the children by asking for help finding a lost puppy, or by offering candy - remember that one - not by taking pictures. And yes, there are child pornographers- but as Damon noted, they rarely spend their time focusing a photos of kids in street clothes hanging out on corners. And as for those who abuse and murder children - usually they are the parents, uncles, cousins, close family friends - or priests - of those children, and not some doofus with a camera (sorry Ben :-) )
Oh, and Ryan, what the "general public" thinks should be irrelevant here. What matters is what the U.S. Constitution, and federal and state laws say.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
So Ben not only gets cuffed and searched but now he is being called a Doofus
I hope you will laugh about this soon Ben.
About parents being more paranoid B.D. absolutely--100% in every way possible. It is the media, rumors on facebook, twitter whatever, it's easy to spread paranoia these days and who hasn't heard tons of "stories".
The internet makes it easy to search for sex offenders too--I have 18 in my neighborhood (not that they are all bad, one was a kid 18 who had sex with a minor of 16 not against her will). But this numer crosses my mind often 18 of them within a few blocks radius.
There was a man doing just what b.d said offering candy to kids at the school just last month, the little girl ran inside, cops were called and the guy disappeared (no one but the kid saw him, so who knows if it is true, but all parents were called about it). Last year my child, then 8 was in our front yard and he told me a man gave him candy as he walked by. I asked why didn't you run away screaming, he said "he said hi and stuck his hand out and I just took the candy"--he tells me this a couple of days after it happened and he hasn't seen him again.
Now as to the photography, you are right, likely molestors probably don't want fully clothed kids in the park--however, one of my kids photos on flickr was lifted and added as a favorite--no identity (blocky head) so I looked at his profile, he had no photos of his own at all, no name, no info, he only favorited others photos(which means he can reaccess them at any time) and it was only kids--just kids, all little girls, at the beach, in the park, on the street, photos of their hair, their mouths, the backview (he chose these portraits of others kids)--nothing provacative in any of the shots, yet taken as a whole it sent shivers down my spine, made me wonder what it was used for. Is there some guys masturbating to my little girl's photos of her eating icecream outside? it just makes you sick, but I'm the one that put that photo out there!
But back to the street photographer, what if it's some psycho who is sort of "casing the kids out".
I can't help and look at this from a mother's point of view equally split w/ a street photographer's view.
I remain torn. I strongly feel that he should not be asked to destroy his card as was suggested, I don't think he should have been cuffed, I don't think the first words out of the cop's mouth should have been "are you a child molestor?". However, I do think that it would not be wrong for them to ask why? I also don't think it would be bad for a parent/teacher to just go up to the photographer and ask why they are taking photos, but I can imagine that not ending well "what the hell areyou doing taking photos of my kid you freaking perv!".
I see both sides to this and I remain a street photographer through and through, but I will always be a mother also, albeit a paranoid one, you nailed it B.D.
_________
I'd certainly agree with that, as well as with the rest of BD's description of how all this came to pass. But the danger is that if the paranoia level rises high enough there's a possibility that the laws, even the Constitution, might change. Remember prohibition. That 24 hour news cycle isn't going to go away, and a kid being molested or murdered is always going to be at the top of the "if it bleeds, it leads" approach to news. Out on the street you'll have a hard time finding anybody who has a clue about the Constitution or the laws in general, and rationality isn't the usual reaction when a parent feels his kid might be in danger.
It might be worth Ben's time to go talk to somebody: not so much to complain as to find out what could lead to being cuffed without notice and whether or not that's standard procedure in a situation like this where no law was broken. If the approach is reason rather than complaint Ben might even get somebody in the hierarchy to look into what happened. But attacking the situation in anger is going to cause the gate to come slamming down. Might make you feel better, but it's not a way to get through to the cops whose butts are always on the line.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
You should really check this guy out ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Alcala
How do think he loured his victims ? It certainty wasn't by offering them a piece of candy.
Hundreds of children go missing every year never to be heard from again. So to say that parents fears are baseless is just plain wrong. BTW I am not advocating people through away their rights but people need to be cautious about photographing children . You don't know what the circumstances are when children get abducted just because you can't see any proof.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
As far as the statement concerning Mrs. Parks - they were dealing with an adult and not a minor - no contest.
I agree, I would not like to be cuffed before being questioned, however, saftey seams to be more important to all involved rather than knowing what is happening.
Just for the record - because of this problem I and many of my photographer friends have stopped taking photos of school sports. I have some photos of kids at the local skate board location - but no faces in any shot.
Street photography is great, but not like it was in the 1950 and 1960's when you could position yourself on a park bench and shoot the afternoon away without any repercussion.
Is it a crime to listen to kids? I could sit on a sidewalk, watch and listen, and write a news story or a column or anything else, describing to the very finest detail of my skillsets, what I had seen.
Is that illegal?
If we, as photographers, don't start standing up for our legal rights, we will, frankly, be screwed. And teh cowardice and near-sighted self-righteousness of those who miss the OP's ordeal sickens me. Christ, we're recorders of history. Or, at least, we can be. And if we do not have the right to do as we always have done - because we capture images with DSLR's and good zoom lenses in an era of cell-phone cameras and minicameras - where are our respective countries going to go?
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
Given all that, I think it's reasonable to ask whether having cops hassle Ben (or other photographers) is a sane use of public resources. More lives would be saved by having stricter enforcement of seat-belt laws.
Yeah it would. I would view it akin to asking minorities what's going on, just to make sure they aren't causing any trouble. Regardless of howyou word it, you're asking if they're a pedophile. Your marginalizing a perfectly legitimate group because of silly fears.
From a pragmatic standpoint, what are they going to answer? Say they're talking pictures of children for their perverse collection? That's not the kind of thing one casually admits to a cop.
10,000 children are hospitalized with brain injuries from sports each year. 2,000 drown and 1,300 are killed in gun accidents. 2,000 children are killed in car accidents, and 250,000 sustain further injuries.
My point being yeah, there are freak accidents. Sometimes you're walking home from the grocery store, a crazy guy stabs you, and you die on the sidewalk. It really sucks, but that's life; these occurances are so freakishly uncommon it makes no sense to live your life around it.
Another observation:
I've never had too much trouble taking pictures at parks. But I'm young, stylish, and often have my girlfriend with me. Is it right for older or less attractive people to be harassed because they fit the public perception of a pedophile why I don't? No, it's discrimination, and it's ridiculously awful. Just like our (hopefully waning) paranoia about Muslims, it's desperation to put a face on an unidentifiable terror, and Benjamin, others, and to a degree men in general have really gotten the short end of the stick on this one.
+1 x 10
If you have 23 minutes and are not easily offended by coarse language, watch this episode of Penn and Teller Bulls**t titled Stranger Danger. It is an irreverent, humorous (if you get their humor), and informative tale of where we have come to on this issue. Warning! it contains explicit language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx6nGxw_hnM
I don't disagree with you.Some parents worry way to much about things they haven't any control over and don't worry enough about things they do have control over regarding their children's safety.
Whether or not peoples fears are unrealistic or not ,they are still fears and if someone reports something to the police they are obliged to investigate.Its not so much about the numbers but more about the culture we live in. Then their are the police who are afraid for their safety,meanwhile they have been trained in self defense ,plus they carry guns,mace, and knives . If they are that paralyzed by fear, then maybe some of them should just get jobs at Tim Horton's.
I think Ben handled this well and nobody got hurt physically and that's a good thing.
No one should be harassed for any reason and if they are they should lay charges.
Situations can get way out of hand. This reminds me of a guy at one of our airports a few years ago who was literally beat up and tazered to death, by about six police. Why? Because the police over-reacted to what? The guy was afraid,confused and didn't speak English and was only here to visit his mother. Its best to just cooperate and follow up on it afterwards.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
For those who want to read about some history - continue on. I am one of 4 boys all within 3 years of each other, my mother would tell us on Saturday and Sunday Morning, after breakfeast - "Go play in the ball field" , it was two streets from our home. "Come home for lunch when you see the sun up on your head - 12:00 O'Clock". "Don't want lunch, I call you when it is time for dinner." Off we would go to play with our friends from the neighborhood, Soccer, BaseBall, Stick Ball. How did we know we were due home - listen for your parent calling your name in the loudest voice possible. My friends always made fun of the method - "Edawood comea home." (Edward come home for dinner). Now tell me what parent would do the same in these times. No adult supervision, just a group of kids having fun. The only incident I remember was when my younger brother was hit by an auto while riding the family bike. He was not injured but he came home carrying the bike in 3 pieces - total destruction.
With this tale I leave you all to continue the great discourse of Police, Minors and Photographer's rights - I must say each new entry is interesting.
They probably got a call/complaint about a guy taking pictures of kids. No big deal on the surface and they identify and approach. What happens next is beyond my comprehension. Any half-way decent officer would have asked a few simple questions first. The fact that you were man-handled I can't understand. Yet being frisked, equipment taken, and cuffed I can understand - but the why is stumping me.
Officers of virtually every jurisdiction can act on 'reasonable suspicion', ie: they receive a call and they find something to warrant further investigation/questioning. This is a lesser standard then 'probable cause' where they believe based on witness accounts/personal observations an actual crime has been committed. Unless there actually is some archaic city ordinance prohibiting the capture of images of kids, you can toss any probable cause out the window leaving reasonable suspicion to work with.
With reasonable suspicion, the officer can generally ask for identification as well as perform a Terry Frisk (basically an external pat-down of the clothing in a quick assessment for weapons). This is a well established court case allowing this. If warranted, the officer also generally has the right, but not the requirement, to handcuff the individual in the name of officer and individual security. Situations like this could include a single unit officer waiting on a secondary officer. Taking the equipment is actually again for protection of both parties, but more for the protection/security of the gear itself. But so far it's still by the book although a bit heavy handed in my opinion.
I'm perplexed by the man-handling as presented as well as the forceful questioning without giving you any information up front such as 1)I'm officer x of the y police department, 2)The reason for the contact is z. Now that REASON would be the interesting part of the equation to me, and I believe that's what the general comment thus far is about.
I suppose I would have been fairly compliant as I know you will not win should it go downhill. You may beat the rap, but not the ride. Yet I would have asked a couple basic questions to include 1) Am I free to leave?, 2) If not, why the detention? I don't buy the "just doing my job" response they provided. They are not very good at it IMO.
The fact that you were handcuffed and not able to leave implies a custodial arrest for the most part. If they looked at the contents of your camera card without a signed judges warrant, they've violated yet another big one. Does this rise to the level of a constitutional civil rights violation? Could, but there isn't a judge in this country that would let it get far. And that's the real shame.
Don't get me wrong... There's a lot of good officers out there. But there's some who should be doing other things.
.
About Me:
I'm proud of myself for keeping control and not allowing this incident to get out of hand.
All though the Cops controlled my movements, I controlled the Atmosphere and overall outcome.
I believe the fact that I was back to my normal life in an hour is testament to that.
I am also at peace with my own innocence in this matter.
Meaning I am not the Sicko they were seeking.
I am surely a Doofus because, all though I was within my rights to take images as I did,
I should not be so Cavalier about those rights. That is nearly as bad as abusing those rights.
I must remember that I live with all of you in a real and sometimes dangerous/sick World.
Rights need to be balanced (I believe) with the reality we occupy.
I to am a Grand Parent and have felt the numbing nausea thinking of such terror befalling one
of mine.
About the Cops:
They felt (at least for the 1st few moments) they had themselves a real Bad Guy! Hence the
initial grabbing of arms, cuffing, etc.
These were undercover Cops that detained me, from that I gathered there must be something
going on in this area and as my Title says, Ben was just "Wrong Time Wrong Place."
Although I was being physically detained, it was civil and respectful.
It was also by no means Violent in actions or voice.
Could they of handled it better/different, Of course.
They could simply of waited for me to get on my bike, call a B&W to make a traffic stop.
From there they could of gotten all the info they needed, no muss no fuss and me none the
wiser. All the more reason for me to believe there was some urgency in there actions.
Bottom line here, I hope they catch the right one.
Will he ever shoot again:
Well I might concentrate on more Mature subject matter
Or hey, how about Flowers, there safe enough
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
Glad to see that your sense of humor is still intact!
And "safe" is the same as "boooooooring!"
Oh, and you can to the Walker Evans exhibit and shoot there...
About Me:
I'm proud of myself for keeping control and not allowing this incident to get out of hand.
All though the Cops controlled my movements, I controlled the Atmosphere and overall outcome.
I believe the fact that I was back to my normal life in an hour is testament to that.
I am also at peace with my own innocence in this matter.
Meaning I am not the Sicko they were seeking.
I am surely a Doofus because, all though I was within my rights to take images as I did,
I should not be so Cavalier about those rights. That is nearly as bad as abusing those rights.
I must remember that I live with all of you in a real and sometimes dangerous/sick World.
Rights need to be balanced (I believe) with the reality we occupy.
I to am a Grand Parent and have felt the numbing nausea thinking of such terror befalling one
of mine.
About the Cops:
They felt (at least for the 1st few moments) they had themselves a real Bad Guy! Hence the
initial grabbing of arms, cuffing, etc.
These were undercover Cops that detained me, from that I gathered there must be something
going on in this area and as my Title says, Ben was just "Wrong Time Wrong Place."
Although I was being physically detained, it was civil and respectful.
It was also by no means Violent in actions or voice.
Could they of handled it better/different, Of course.
They could simply of waited for me to get on my bike, call a B&W to make a traffic stop.
From there they could of gotten all the info they needed, no muss no fuss and me none the
wiser. All the more reason for me to believe there was some urgency in there actions.
Bottom line here, I hope they catch the right one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ben,
This is a far different version of what you originally posted. This version is like the battered woman syndrome. I didn't cook dinner or clean the house, it was my own fault.
BULL!
What people don't get is that we in America have more rights than most people on the planet, but and this is important....we have far less rights today than 10 or 20 years ago. We have been sacrificing rights for perceived safety.
If you want to continue to have these right we all must stand up and fight for them! NOTE: "fight for them" does not mean physically or violently. But as an example Ben has (apparently) rationalized that while he has done nothing wrong he was at fault and accepts this treatment. No complaints, no investigation, no contemplating laws and rights need be be done by the police dept, and this behavior will continue and fast become the departments culture.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about taking photos in a public space, period. There is no such thing (yet) as the thought police. What is the rational for grabbing someone who is not violating any laws, throwing them on car hood, handcuffing them, and accusing them of crimes not in evidence, or of crimes of thought?
If as a society we accept this treatment, then expect it to not only continue but to get worse.
That said......we and the police ideally should be partners working together not adversaries.
If approached and spoken to in a polite manner I would certainly recommend responding in a like manner. Even though I have no obligation to answer why I am taking photos I would try my best to explain. Again we are not supposed to be enemies.
Sam
OK..I do not understand this post.
What do you mean "the photographer does not have the copyright?"
Are you referring to American law, or some other country?
Sam
Where the battleground is, in my opinion, sits with what is considered "reasonable suspicion." That has been interpreted so broadly post 9/11 that you can be frisked for just about anything. In New York they've thrown caution to the wind and do it openly without any justification at all. The vast majority of stop and frisks in that town are due to "furtive movement" (looking sneaky, basically). So far no one has been able to stop them. My understanding is that the public largely supports these types of aggressive tactics. Therefore, we are unlikely to generate the political will necessary to turn the tide. Humanity has been down this road many times in our history. It is a well trodden path. No one has figured out a good way of stopping it, that I know of.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/nyregion/12frisk.html
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
Hear, hear, Sam. You're the first person I've run across in a long time willing to come right out and say we had more rights 10 or 20 years ago. How about 70 years ago? When I was 12 and it was summertime I used to get on a streetcar, go downtown in Detroit, and wander all over the place on my own... Spend all day -- sometimes shooting pictures with my box camera, sometimes just watching what was going on. Nowadays, if I were living in the suburb where I grew up I wouldn't go downtown in Detroit by myself with less than a quad fifty mounted on a hummer. How's that for a loss of rights? Even in the sixties you didn't have to worry much about letting your kids run around out of your sight. But not any more. So you're right, Ben had every legal right to shoot those pictures, but Ben also learned you have to be careful because of the wretched times we live in.
If you want an interesting take on how far and why we've come down from what we had even 50 years ago, find a copy of Charles Murray's book, Coming Apart. He describes what's happened and how far it's gone but unfortunately he doesn't have an answer to the question: "how do we fix it?"
www.FineArtSnaps.com
That is an incorrect statement. Their justification for a Terry frisk is for Officer safety as held up under scrutiny a bazillion times in court. Justification is not required other than a possibility the subject in question might have weapons on their person. In other words, you're not likely to see someone is tight shorts/t-shirt get a pat-down. The bulkier the clothes, the higher the probability dependent on the situation. And if they reach into a pocket under the guise of a Terry frisk, they have violated your civil rights under Search and Seizure. But to pat down the exterior of your person - legitimate.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but having been on that side of the fence it's not the officers making these decisions. It's the courts and the Terry frisk is a tool granted by the courts. Now, do some abuse that? Sure.
.
I don't feel battered, Sam not in the least.
I did fight and got my life back in an hour.
I'm filing a complaint with the Butler Ave Station where these officers work out of.
You know during the time I was being investigated on the public street,
i did not see any civilians coming to my defense and protest my treatment!
Had you of been there would you join me?
Would you have me become the Hero of this new Revolution and don my three point hat and knee boots.
Mount my trusty Steed and wave my Saber as I gather up more more like minded heros.
Will you be waiting for me?
Shall I spent all I have and all I will ever have in $$$$ to pursue this righteous quest.
Will you loan $$$ ?
Shall I move my family out of harms way, as the Enemy comes calling
Will you put me up and become an accessory?
Sam, I did what I had to, cause I'm an alone and weak in this quest.
My conclusion to what happened is based on the Reality of Life for ME!
Show me how to be this Hero and Win this righteous battle and I'll
be your, "Huckleberry".
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
If I understand what you're saying, if we could be a fly on the wall in a NYPD police cruiser we might hear a conversation go down like this?
"Hey! Do you see that guy over there! He is wearing a coat. I bet if we had some reason to stop him he could possibly have a weapon concealed in his pocket."
"You're right Officer Jones. That is pretty suspicious. Let's grab him and investigate!"
To me, that kind of justification sounds like no justification at all.
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
Discussing and arguing is quite acceptable in my opinion. That's how we present our view points.
Lets see, based on Ben's account he was walking down the street, had not done anything illegal, no witness claimed to have observed him commit any crime. Then two police officers grab him put him face down on the hood of a car, handcuff him, yell at him accusing him of being a pedophile, detain him for an hour , and you don't see any constitutional rights violated???
You try and justify this behavior based on what the officers were thinking??? I don't care what they were thinking, or claim to be thinking! I want to hear and see facts. Nothing I have read about this incident would justify the police actions.
OH you don't need a lawyer to tell what your constitutional rights are. The constitution was written for the people, me / you / etc. it was not written in shyster code.
But do realize the more people who accept this as normal will only encourage this type of behavior along with the elimination of our constitutional rights.
Sam
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
Specifically about his rights, using only Ben's account and avoiding "what ifs" or speculation, my reading of CAL statute, CAL case law, and US Supreme Court opinion tells me the police exceeded their authority (violated his rights) by going directly to detainment and seizure without "reasonable suspicion" - which must be articulated and based on objective facts and not just a "hunch" on the part of police. They should have questioned him un-detained and then (and only then) escalate to detainment/seizure based on the reasonable suspicion that he had, or was about to commit a crime.
There is a famous case from here in San Diego, Kolender v. Lawson, that helped establish the rights of a citizen who is just walking down the sidewalk doing nothing suspicious or illegal. IMO no reasonable observer can construe a man with a camera on a public sidewalk (as described in Ben's account) as meeting the legal threshold of "reasonable suspicion"
I'm sorry Ryan, but I respectfully reject your assertions that there is no history of victory over tyranny, nor a public will to do so - such ignores a long list of efforts - many, but not all successful - to secure Liberty, Equality, and Justice for individuals to nations. It is a whole different discussion.
Actually, I've been quite deliberate in not getting into specific details since I was not there. I eluded to what was presented as well as what the officers can generally under color of law perform, specifically the Terry frisk which is for weapons.
However, you are not too far off point as a tremendous number of big stops are made by what you describe. It goes more like "Hmmm. Officer Smith, do you think that Escalade/tinted windows/24" rims driving 5mph in front of that house looks suspicious at 3am"? Officer Jones says "yep - hey look. The license plate light is out". Bingo. Probable cause as they did in fact observe a traffic code violation so the traffic stop ensues. Terry frisks would be common, but the bigger picture is they targeted a vehicle and found a violation to make the stop on a fishing expedition.
In Ben's case, they probably received a call about a male subject with a camera and he fit the description. I highly doubt they went looking for a guy with a camera and bulky clothes just to go on a fishing expedition for what was in his pockets.
See the difference in this case?
.