This is slightly off the main topic but relevant to other posts in the thread. I am not sure where the belief that you are automatically within your rights to refuse to identify yourself to a police officer comes from, but in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) the US Supreme Court ruled that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. 20 states have these statutes. Interestingly, in the case of this thread, Washington is not one of them (neither is California - Angelo), so from a strictly legal perspective the OP may be on solid ground in WA in demanding to know why they wanted to ID him. However, if you live in states including New York you are required by law to ID yourself in just about any situation when asked. All that stops this from being law in your state is state legislation enacting it.
As a Canadian used to sacrificing some civil liberties in the name of larger societal concerns I don't see the big deal in providing ID when asked, but can appreciate the slippery slope argument and the sense of indignation the OP expressed. It's a tough issue - idealogical vs practical debates always are. At least it's been mainly polite in here.
... but in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) the US Supreme Court ruled that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments...
- Mike
The key word here is "suspects" ... what crme was committed which would give the police reason to think that gmonkeh is a suspect? I guess photographing while being non-white is reasonable cause for the police, because all the light colored skin people that were shooting the same thing at the same place at the same time were not questioned.
I guess photographing while being non-white is reasonable cause for the police, because all the light colored skin people that were shooting the same thing at the same place at the same time were not questioned.
Aside from race, there are likely to be other differences as well. For example, the other folks in the area were probably typical tourists taking snapshots. By his own accord, gmonkeh spent a lot of time walking around practicing "street photography". That would have a completely different appearance to an observer and could look suspicious. Futhermore, we have no idea how many "white" shutter bugs are questioned each day by these officers. I don't know why folks are so eager to call this a racial incident without having the facts.
Wrong. We have no idea why the cops picked him out as being suspicious and questioned him. I'm not naive enough to think that not one, but two cops, in this age of racial sensitivity, decided to single out one person soley because of race.
I find it interesting how many people here are willing to try and convict the cops involved without hearing their side of the story. There are countless reasons why gmonkeh may have gotten their attention. It could have been his equipment, something I personally doubt. It may have been his focus of attention, which is more likely. Even more likely is the possibility that they received a complaint. Maybe an overly protective mom thought she saw him taking pictures of her kid.
Or perhaps one of these people didn't appreciate their picture being taken by a stranger and complained to the cops. You folks would be the same people to convict the cops if a black woman complained here that a stranger was stalking their child and the cops wouldn't even go talk to the alleged stalker. You can't have it both ways.
There are two sides to every story, my friend.
Regards,
-joel
And since when taking photos of children or *anybody* in public places is a crime?
... Futhermore, we have no idea how many "white" shutter bugs are questioned each day by these officers. I don't know why folks are so eager to call this a racial incident without having the facts.
Regards
-joel
In that respect you are correct ... we haven't heard from the police and all conclusions are being generated by facts from only one side ... so why doesn't somebody email the police regarding this thread and see if they are willing to respond?
If they do, which I seriously doubt, I hope it's with more insight than "... just doing our job..." or "... the Patriot Act gives us the right ... " or even better "... providing any information would compromise national security..."
Just because a person has the legal authority and ability to perform an act on another person ... doesn't make that action appropriate or just.
In that respect you are correct ... we haven't heard from the police and all conclusions are being generated by facts from only one side ... so why doesn't somebody email the police regarding this thread and see if they are willing to respond? Gary
Thank you. I'm glad somebody finally gets what I've been trying to say. I doubt we'd get much of anything useful from the cops because they'd probably want to protect gmonkeh's privacy. Really, he's the only person who's in a position to get the straight scoop from the cops. IMHO, he should have done this before publically accusing them of racial bias.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial] I was pretty much given the runaround by the lady I spoke to at the BPD. It's confirmed that there we're no complaints. The officers just happened to pass me by and deemed me of suspicious behavior because I was taking pictures by the ferry terminal.
I asked her if there we're restrictions or signs in the area that says no photography. She said no. Then I asked If any other photographers in the area we're questioned, she said no. I think at this point she sensed what I was trying to allude to and she just gave me that it's routine for cops to check out possible suspicious behavior.
So say or think what you will.
Some have said my rights weren't violated? Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial] ... Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot. [/FONT]
Why? Keep right on shooting. Nobody's out to stop you from taking pictures. If you do it enough the cops will just say "oh, it's him again" and ignore you which is what you want in the first place. Right?
You know it's really starting to rub me that people keep saying stop being sensitive and get over it. I'm not complaining that the cops we're doing their jobs. It's the manner they chose to do it.
If you read my post I was fully cooperative, I wasn't being a smart ass with the cops. You think I'm that much of a d-d-d-dumbass to tell a cop with an already hostile attitude towards me "heeere's your sign!".
Like I said it's easy to say let it go when you're the spectator.
I agree. I've been there...done that. But, it's a fight I know I'll lose, so I eat my pie and comply. It's sure frustrating that we have to deal with that attitude, but consider the crapola those boys have to deal with. I see it from their standpoint more nowadays.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial] ...
Some have said my rights weren't violated? Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot. [/FONT]
You know gmonkeh, if it was racially motivated ... then by restricting/altering your actions ... well they win. The "honorable man" tries to live a principled life ... and in this case I think it would be honorable to continue what you enjoy and require for your class, rather than sucumb to the action(s) of others which is motivated from a not-so-enlightened school of behavior.
Additionally, if you feel as strongly as you appear, then I would seek out a city elected official (councilperson) and lodge a complaint/concern with them. The councilperson/staff is your represenative who's job is to look into these matters. Remember that if the councilmember looks into this matter three things may happen:
1) You won't get "harrassed" again;
or
2) You'll get a ticket for every "i" that's not dotted or "t" that's not crossed (so another trip back to the councilmember's office via the ACLU - *sigh*.); or
3) The officers may be reminded that the color of one's skin does not equate to a lack of patriotism or disrespect for the law. And hopefully, this type of abuse, (if it was racially motivated), would be lessened by your actions.[FONT="][/FONT]
Anyway good luck to you and keep posting your photos.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial] Some have said my rights weren't violated? Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot. [/FONT]
If you or anyone is approached my an officer and you think they are harrassing you, you should take the time to get their names. They usually have them on their uniforms.
I wouldn't stop shooting, and as long as you aren't trespassing, you shouldn't have to.
I don't know who this lady was, but if she wasn't someone in charge, you talked to the wrong person. You need to talk to someone like the beat/shift Sgt. I know I'd get you your answer......:D
... I don't know who this lady was, but if she wasn't someone in charge, you talked to the wrong person. You need to talk to someone like the beat/shift Sgt. I know I'd get you your answer......:D
Ahhh ... good advice .. the Watch Commander we call 'em out here.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial] I was pretty much given the runaround by the lady I spoke to at the BPD. It's confirmed that there we're no complaints. The officers just happened to pass me by and deemed me of suspicious behavior because I was taking pictures by the ferry terminal.
I asked her if there we're restrictions or signs in the area that says no photography. She said no. Then I asked If any other photographers in the area we're questioned, she said no. I think at this point she sensed what I was trying to allude to and she just gave me that it's routine for cops to check out possible suspicious behavior.
So say or think what you will.
Some have said my rights weren't violated? Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot. [/FONT]
FYI: I live in New York. I'm white. My husband is hispanic.
I don't understand how your rights were violated. No one stopped you from taking photos. No one abused or assaulted you. No one told you to delete the pictures you had taken. You were asked what you were doing, asked for ID and then told you were free to go.
You were at a ferry terminal with a big camera and telephoto lens. Had the place been bombed two days later I bet there'd be a lot of huff that the police didn't do enough.
I AM one of "those people" who do believe in protecting our liberties. I am not the type to think that the authorities can do anything they want in the name of public safety. At the same time, I can also look at a situation reasonably, and honestly, I'm thinking you are making a much bigger deal about this than is warranted.
My husband and I have been at places photographing and video-taping (film is another of our hobbies) and have never been questioned (we were down by Shea Stadium one day filming for no reason other than to test our equipment). We have also been in places where we were asked to stop immediately (we were filming footage of Walmart once and were told to stop and leave the premises). I've been questioned alone, when I'm not with my husband. We've been looked at suspiciously individually and together. Has my husband sometimes been "racially profiled" - probably. Has it sometimes been much more a matter of having a big camera or big video camera? Absolutely.
The cops have the right to question you if they think your activities strike them as suspicious. YOU may not think you're being suspicious at all, and you may be doing nothing wrong, that doesn't mean the cops agree. Whether it was a result of your big camera or the color of your skin, there's no way to know for sure. I'm inclined to believe if you had just been down there enjoying the weather like everyone else, you wouldn't have been questioned at all... and that leads me to believe it had a lot more to do with your big camera.
And in the end, the result of your story was that none of your rights were violated in even the slightest of ways. Big deal, you were questioned for five minutes.
I'm sure my reply will be unpopular and you certainly have the right to disagree with me... I just fail to see where you were violated in such an obscene way.
Racial Profiling may be one of those police tactics considered SO incredibly wrong in our society today... but to ignore the race of people is just as offensive (and insensible).
Amy Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
Big deal, you were questioned for five minutes.
I'm sure my reply will be unpopular and you certainly have the right to disagree with me... I just fail to see where you were violated in such an obscene way.
Where exactly in this thread did I say I felt I was "violated in such an obscene way"? I was venting cause two cops (notice I said 2 and not "all" cops.) decided they would single me out of a handful of other hobbyist/tourists taking pictures at the time. I never cried injustice or blah blah blah. I was frustrated at the situtation and I have the right to be, and I definitely have the right to come to a public forum and vent. And of course I expect people to disagree with my POV but I didn't expect people to react to me the way some have.
And I don't know about you but I'm not too comfortable in the fact that people saw me getting questioned with the implication that I was casing out the ferries.
From what I've gathered talking to the Bremerton PD, I was deemed suspicious and from my standpoint it wasn't solely because I had an "expensive camera" or I was shooting near the ferry terminal..........
Bah who cares, can someone go ahead and lock this thread. I'm getting tired of trying to defend myself when obviously I was in the wrong to shoot in a completely public space and apparently looking suspicious.
bremerton
If I recall correctly, Bremerton is home to a U.S. Navy base that houses nuclear armed submarines. Seems like I also remember "No photos" signs getting off the state ferry in Bremerton since the naval base was right there. If you were shooting on the waterfront, perhaps this is the issue?
Don't get me wrong-- I'm not justifying any of this-- just raising a point I didn't see raised in other threads. We all know aspiring terrorists could use google earth or a camera phone without raising suspicions... but you have to choose your battles.
Incidentally, didn't the city of Seattle just get ordered to pay $10 million to protestors illegally arrested during the 1999 WTO protests? Cops screw up-- and sometimes it takes years for anything to come of it even when tens of thousands of people witness first-hand (much less millions on t.v.) their illegal activities.
EDIT: actually it was a million dollars. Here's the story in the Seattle Times:
Liek some of you have said, there are good and honest people, however bad and dishonest people also exists.
I have been pulled over several times when in most cases it was not due to me speeding, but the way my vehicle looked and in those cases I was charged for speeding even though I know I was not speeding. I fought these tickets in court and won. So dont think they can win you over just because they have the power to ticket you, you have the power to fight it back.
The simple fact is that, it doesnt matter where you are, police officers have certain things to 'target' if it be your looks and demeanor. Also some cops are not as honest as others. I have had officers who were truly nice to me as well as officers who were truly discourteous. They are not all made the same.
The best thing to do is just be courteous yourself and of course, know your rights as a civilian.
Here is a good website with FAQs about what you can do and not do when a police officer approaches/questions you:
Also, I wouldnt stop going there just because you felt harassed, officers are just people, they are bound by laws & rules . They are there to work for you.
Liek some of you have said, there are good and honest people, however bad and dishonest people also exists.
I have been pulled over several times when in most cases it was not due to me speeding, but the way my vehicle looked and in those cases I was charged for speeding even though I know I was not speeding. I fought these tickets in court and won. So dont think they can win you over just because they have the power to ticket you, you have the power to fight it back.
The simple fact is that, it doesnt matter where you are, police officers have certain things to 'target' if it be your looks and demeanor. Also some cops are not as honest as others. I have had officers who were truly nice to me as well as officers who were truly discourteous. They are not all made the same.
The best thing to do is just be courteous yourself and of course, know your rights as a civilian.
Here is a good website with FAQs about what you can do and not do when a police officer approaches/questions you:
Also, I wouldnt stop going there just because you felt harassed, officers are just people, they are bound by laws & rules . They are there to work for you.
It's not about being asked to show ID. It is all about being singled out from a host of people all performing the same act.
Gmonkeh feels he was singled out because the color of his skin was different than the other photographers. Not being there and seeing what the cops were seeing ... I dunno if that was the only or primary reason he was singled out ... but if it was racially motivated ... then gmonkeh should exercise every God given unalienable right that our founding fathers have granted to an individual citizen in making a giant stink.
If it wasn't racially motivated, then the police should sit down with gmonkeh and explain their reasoning for questioning his photography/actions and not the others.
It's not about being asked to show ID. It is all about being singled out from a host of people all performing the same act.
Only they weren't performing the same act. How many of them are posting the pictures they took that day here? None of course. How about on another internet forum? Doubtful any. There's a big difference between a typical tourist snapping a few pictures and a serious photographer with professional grade equipment spending a lot of time to carefully frame shots. Nothing wrong with that mind, you. But to the uninitiated it stands out as being different. The key word is "uninitiated". One shouldn't attribute malice to a situation where ignorance as an explanation might suffice.
What we have is a shooter being questioned unnecessarily by two cops, wasting both their time and the shooter's time.
The fact that their were other folks shooting who were Caucasian and not similarly treated would lend credence to him being racially profiled. To say it was because he had a DSLR is silly because someone who was up to no good would use gear that would not draw attention to themselves. Even for the "uninitiated" this is pretty much common sense especially for two allegedly "street-wise" cops.
I don't object to the police questioning someone who is acting suspiciously but I do object to them acting stupidly and harassing someone w/o cause.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Only they weren't performing the same act. How many of them are posting the pictures they took that day here? None of course. How about on another internet forum? Doubtful any. There's a big difference between a typical tourist snapping a few pictures and a serious photographer with professional grade equipment spending a lot of time to carefully frame shots. Nothing wrong with that mind, you. But to the uninitiated it stands out as being different. The key word is "uninitiated". One shouldn't attribute malice to a situation where ignorance as an explanation might suffice.
Regards,
-joel
Huh???? What does posting on the internet have to do with police possibly motivated by race rather than cause? This thread is really going out on a tanget ... it seems you failed to read the entire post ... so I'll repeat my earlier post -
... Gmonkeh feels he was singled out because the color of his skin was different than the other photographers. Not being there and seeing what the cops were seeing ... I dunno if that was the only or primary reason he was singled out ... but if it was racially motivated ... then gmonkeh should exercise every God given unalienable right that our founding fathers have granted to an individual citizen in making a giant stink.
If it wasn't racially motivated, then the police should sit down with gmonkeh and explain their reasoning for questioning his photography/actions and not the others.
I think this is a rational response to the five pages of postings. In the police favor ... maybe that day they stopped and questioned 20 other people all behaving in a similar manner as gmonkeh ... and the other 20 were white ... in that case I think gmonkeh's perception of racism is wrong ... but if he was the only person singled out for questioning that day, or if all the others (if there were any others) were also non-white ... then I think that based on circumstancial evidence the police are wrong.
The bottom line is that we don't know anything about what motivated the police. But I applaud gmonkeh for taking the time to visit the station and question their action(s). If we all stood up and responsibly questioned those in/with authority when we felt that a wrong has occurred, this country would be a better place ... and we better citizens.
Don't agree Harry - and that's because unless the white people had the same professional grade equipment, approaching strangers and asking to take their photos, and were shooting the same things with that equipment, you cannot say that all things were equal except for skin color.
You say it was a waste of time. Well that's only a conclusion you can draw NOW. The cops had a judgement call to make and they chose to question the photographer. They have no way to defininitely know that he's not up to no good... and their job is to make that determination. I suspect it had a lot more to do with his activities and equipment than the color of his skin... but my suspicion is no more founded than the suspicion that he was stopped soley for the color of his skin.
And that's the whole point.
gmonkeh... you didn't specifically state you were obscenely violated, but titling the thread "racially profiled...", your tone in some of your replies, and you indicating that you called the police department a few days later certainly could lead one to believe you felt you had suffered some great injustice. Reading your story, I simply do not share that conclusion. I don't even see it as more than a mild inconvenience. You suggested that people at the pier were then judging you because the cops were questioning you... well that can happen anywhere, anytime, and I can only reply by saying that I wouldn't worry so much about what other people think. If your story appeared in the newspaper police beat the following weekend with your photo and your name and actually publicly accused you of an unfounded crime I might agree with you, but in this case, well, not so much.
Amy Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
Don't agree Harry - and that's because unless the white people had the same professional grade equipment, approaching strangers and asking to take their photos, and were shooting the same things with that equipment, you cannot say that all things were equal except for skin color.
You say it was a waste of time. Well that's only a conclusion you can draw NOW. The cops had a judgement call to make and they chose to question the photographer. They have no way to defininitely know that he's not up to no good... and their job is to make that determination. I suspect it had a lot more to do with his activities and equipment than the color of his skin... but my suspicion is no more founded than the suspicion that he was stopped soley for the color of his skin.
And that's the whole point.
What makes DSLR gear suspicious? If the OP was a terrorist he would be using gear that didn't stand out from the crowd. He would attempt to blend in. The simple fact that he stood out by using "pro" gear and was non-white does not make him suspicious.
The cops did make a judgement call and they used bad judgement. They wasted their time and the OP's time. I can't say for sure that their actions were racist but I sure can say they were stupid.
Police have an important role to play and it helps no one when they perform poorly or use poor judgement. In this case did a lousy job. If their actions in this scenario are an indication of the judgement they normally use then I hope they soon find new employment that does not require them to carry weapons.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I was walking around for an hour or so when I noticed a couple of bicycle cops eyeing me. I was shooting random subjects mind you and I didn't even take any pictures of them. It started raining and I was getting hungry so I decided to walk back to my car.
Here's the point in the original post that I could see where those two cops thought it was worth checking out gmonkeh. They noticed him, he noticed them. Soon after he decided to walk back to his car. If the cops had seen him first, and if gmonkeh saw them and turned and left....abruptly, it would raise some suspicion. They really can't win for losing here. If they didn't do a meet and greet, and something bad happened soon after, they'd be kicking themselves, thinking...remember that guy we saw... They did the meet and greet, found nothing wrong, but did get a name, just in case.
I don't know how much time actually transpired between the time gmonkeh saw them and turned and left, or how quickly he returned to his car, but it just may have been the thing that raised that suspicion.
Monday morning quarterbacks always think they are better than the game day quarterback, but that usually isn't the case. Anyone that wasn't there and comes to a diffinative conclusion as to the cops thoughts....is just plain arrogant.
The simple fact that he stood out by using "pro" gear and was non-white does not make him suspicious.
So you know for a fact that that's the only difference? My guess is that 99% of the folks on the Bremberton Pier are typically tourists shooting the odd snapshot. A person hanging out on the pier practicing "street photography" is going to stick out like a sore thumb, regardless of race. And there could be any number of other factors that caused the cops to be concerned about gmonkeh, which may or may not concern terrorism. Nobody knows. So to be questioned by cops and then posting on the internet that you've been racially profiled is irresponsible. That's my only point.
I wasn't going to weigh in here at all, but here goes...
No one really knows what was in the mind of the two beat cops, except the two beat cops. I have to put my hand up here and say that I am a cop here in Australia, so I might have a different perspective to other people
Anyway, the main question seems to be "was gmonkeh racially profiled?" ... and the answer to that is "no one knows" except of course the two cops involved. But ask yourself this question... what else had happened that day in that vicinity that the beat cops might have been privy to? Anything... oh, yeah, the only ones that know that are the two cops.
I'm not trying to say that what they did was right or wrong, just asking that people don't jump to conclusions. Sometimes our (police) job is quite hard... damned if you do and damned if you don't! Without knowing all of the facts that occurred on this particular occasion... and that includes what was in the minds of the two cops involved... then we just simply won't be able to come to a difinitive answer. :deadhorse
Like someone else said during the thread... if you haven't broken any laws, then keep on doing what you were doing. Gus hit the nail on the head when he said the local boys and girls in blue just think "oh it's that big bald guy again"... he's now know to them... they know he's not a threat and that he isn't up to anything illegal, so they let him go about his business.
So you know for a fact that that's the only difference? My guess is that 99% of the folks on the Bremberton Pier are typically tourists shooting the odd snapshot. A person hanging out on the pier practicing "street photography" is going to stick out like a sore thumb, regardless of race. And there could be any number of other factors that caused the cops to be concerned about gmonkeh, which may or may not concern terrorism. Nobody knows. So to be questioned by cops and then posting on the internet that you've been racially profiled is irresponsible. That's my only point.
Regards,
-joel
There is nothing irresponsible from looking at a set of facts and drawing a reasonable conclusion from those facts. The questions could have been answered if the two cops had simply explained their actions after running their check and finding nothing amiss. They choose not to do so. That leads me to conclude that they didn't want their motivations known.
Gmonkeh did nothing illegal and nothing suspcious. He only took some pictures.
In my old job I had to conduct a number of potential fraud investigations into individuals' incorrect receipt of benefits. When my investigation was completed I always informed the individual of the outcome and the reasons for the investigation. Its not hard to do when your reasons are valid.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
The one depressing thing that I find reading this thread is that it's clear that the fear and paranoia spread by our leaders has clawed its way into the consciences of many people.
I had imagined that almost every contributor would rather like to feel that they can go about their hobby or business without being interfered with by over zealous law enforcement.
It is frankly laughable to suggest that terrorists would target the location in question and even if they were of a mind to do so that they would wander around in the conspicuous manner of gmonkeh taking photographs.
Ah dear, another disgruntled law abiding citizen who feels uncomfortable going about his daily business and another victory for fear, paranoia and those who would seek to alter our way of life.
Comments
As a Canadian used to sacrificing some civil liberties in the name of larger societal concerns I don't see the big deal in providing ID when asked, but can appreciate the slippery slope argument and the sense of indignation the OP expressed. It's a tough issue - idealogical vs practical debates always are. At least it's been mainly polite in here.
- Mike
Canon 30D | 10D
Canon 10-22 | 28-135 f3.5-5.6 | 70-200 f4L | 100-400 f4-5.6L
Canon Speedlight 580EX
Kenko Extension Tubes
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Regards
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
And since when taking photos of children or *anybody* in public places is a crime?
http://padu.smugmug.com
www.merlotti.com
Sony dslr A100, Minolta Maxxum 7000, Voighlander Bessa R and Calumet 4x5 View Camera
If they do, which I seriously doubt, I hope it's with more insight than "... just doing our job..." or "... the Patriot Act gives us the right ... " or even better "... providing any information would compromise national security..."
Just because a person has the legal authority and ability to perform an act on another person ... doesn't make that action appropriate or just.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Thank you. I'm glad somebody finally gets what I've been trying to say. I doubt we'd get much of anything useful from the cops because they'd probably want to protect gmonkeh's privacy. Really, he's the only person who's in a position to get the straight scoop from the cops. IMHO, he should have done this before publically accusing them of racial bias.
Regards,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
Statements like that are profiling too. You lump all Police Officers into a stereo type, just like the OP said those TWO officers did to him.
There are good and bad people in every profession, like it or not. Maybe these two were bad, maybe they weren't.
I asked her if there we're restrictions or signs in the area that says no photography. She said no. Then I asked If any other photographers in the area we're questioned, she said no. I think at this point she sensed what I was trying to allude to and she just gave me that it's routine for cops to check out possible suspicious behavior.
So say or think what you will.
Some have said my rights weren't violated? Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot.
[/FONT]
Nikon D300
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Nikkor 80-200 AF-D ED f/2.8
2 Alien Bees AB800
Nikon Speedlight SB800
Elinchrome Skyport Triggers
Why?
Regards,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
I agree. I've been there...done that. But, it's a fight I know I'll lose, so I eat my pie and comply. It's sure frustrating that we have to deal with that attitude, but consider the crapola those boys have to deal with. I see it from their standpoint more nowadays.
You know gmonkeh, if it was racially motivated ... then by restricting/altering your actions ... well they win. The "honorable man" tries to live a principled life ... and in this case I think it would be honorable to continue what you enjoy and require for your class, rather than sucumb to the action(s) of others which is motivated from a not-so-enlightened school of behavior.
Additionally, if you feel as strongly as you appear, then I would seek out a city elected official (councilperson) and lodge a complaint/concern with them. The councilperson/staff is your represenative who's job is to look into these matters. Remember that if the councilmember looks into this matter three things may happen:
1) You won't get "harrassed" again;
or
2) You'll get a ticket for every "i" that's not dotted or "t" that's not crossed (so another trip back to the councilmember's office via the ACLU - *sigh*.); or
3) The officers may be reminded that the color of one's skin does not equate to a lack of patriotism or disrespect for the law. And hopefully, this type of abuse, (if it was racially motivated), would be lessened by your actions.[FONT="][/FONT]
Anyway good luck to you and keep posting your photos.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
If you or anyone is approached my an officer and you think they are harrassing you, you should take the time to get their names. They usually have them on their uniforms.
I wouldn't stop shooting, and as long as you aren't trespassing, you shouldn't have to.
I don't know who this lady was, but if she wasn't someone in charge, you talked to the wrong person. You need to talk to someone like the beat/shift Sgt. I know I'd get you your answer......:D
Ahhh ... good advice .. the Watch Commander we call 'em out here.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
I don't understand how your rights were violated. No one stopped you from taking photos. No one abused or assaulted you. No one told you to delete the pictures you had taken. You were asked what you were doing, asked for ID and then told you were free to go.
You were at a ferry terminal with a big camera and telephoto lens. Had the place been bombed two days later I bet there'd be a lot of huff that the police didn't do enough.
I AM one of "those people" who do believe in protecting our liberties. I am not the type to think that the authorities can do anything they want in the name of public safety. At the same time, I can also look at a situation reasonably, and honestly, I'm thinking you are making a much bigger deal about this than is warranted.
My husband and I have been at places photographing and video-taping (film is another of our hobbies) and have never been questioned (we were down by Shea Stadium one day filming for no reason other than to test our equipment). We have also been in places where we were asked to stop immediately (we were filming footage of Walmart once and were told to stop and leave the premises). I've been questioned alone, when I'm not with my husband. We've been looked at suspiciously individually and together. Has my husband sometimes been "racially profiled" - probably. Has it sometimes been much more a matter of having a big camera or big video camera? Absolutely.
The cops have the right to question you if they think your activities strike them as suspicious. YOU may not think you're being suspicious at all, and you may be doing nothing wrong, that doesn't mean the cops agree. Whether it was a result of your big camera or the color of your skin, there's no way to know for sure. I'm inclined to believe if you had just been down there enjoying the weather like everyone else, you wouldn't have been questioned at all... and that leads me to believe it had a lot more to do with your big camera.
And in the end, the result of your story was that none of your rights were violated in even the slightest of ways. Big deal, you were questioned for five minutes.
I'm sure my reply will be unpopular and you certainly have the right to disagree with me... I just fail to see where you were violated in such an obscene way.
Racial Profiling may be one of those police tactics considered SO incredibly wrong in our society today... but to ignore the race of people is just as offensive (and insensible).
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook
Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
Where exactly in this thread did I say I felt I was "violated in such an obscene way"? I was venting cause two cops (notice I said 2 and not "all" cops.) decided they would single me out of a handful of other hobbyist/tourists taking pictures at the time. I never cried injustice or blah blah blah. I was frustrated at the situtation and I have the right to be, and I definitely have the right to come to a public forum and vent. And of course I expect people to disagree with my POV but I didn't expect people to react to me the way some have.
And I don't know about you but I'm not too comfortable in the fact that people saw me getting questioned with the implication that I was casing out the ferries.
From what I've gathered talking to the Bremerton PD, I was deemed suspicious and from my standpoint it wasn't solely because I had an "expensive camera" or I was shooting near the ferry terminal..........
Bah who cares, can someone go ahead and lock this thread. I'm getting tired of trying to defend myself when obviously I was in the wrong to shoot in a completely public space and apparently looking suspicious.
Cheers
Lex
Nikon D300
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Nikkor 80-200 AF-D ED f/2.8
2 Alien Bees AB800
Nikon Speedlight SB800
Elinchrome Skyport Triggers
I assure you that this is not posted towards anyone at all but my job is to keep things mellow here.
If I recall correctly, Bremerton is home to a U.S. Navy base that houses nuclear armed submarines. Seems like I also remember "No photos" signs getting off the state ferry in Bremerton since the naval base was right there. If you were shooting on the waterfront, perhaps this is the issue?
Don't get me wrong-- I'm not justifying any of this-- just raising a point I didn't see raised in other threads. We all know aspiring terrorists could use google earth or a camera phone without raising suspicions... but you have to choose your battles.
Incidentally, didn't the city of Seattle just get ordered to pay $10 million to protestors illegally arrested during the 1999 WTO protests? Cops screw up-- and sometimes it takes years for anything to come of it even when tens of thousands of people witness first-hand (much less millions on t.v.) their illegal activities.
EDIT: actually it was a million dollars. Here's the story in the Seattle Times:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=wto03m&date=20070403&query=WTO
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
I have been pulled over several times when in most cases it was not due to me speeding, but the way my vehicle looked and in those cases I was charged for speeding even though I know I was not speeding. I fought these tickets in court and won. So dont think they can win you over just because they have the power to ticket you, you have the power to fight it back.
The simple fact is that, it doesnt matter where you are, police officers have certain things to 'target' if it be your looks and demeanor. Also some cops are not as honest as others. I have had officers who were truly nice to me as well as officers who were truly discourteous. They are not all made the same.
The best thing to do is just be courteous yourself and of course, know your rights as a civilian.
Here is a good website with FAQs about what you can do and not do when a police officer approaches/questions you:
http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions
Also, I wouldnt stop going there just because you felt harassed, officers are just people, they are bound by laws & rules . They are there to work for you.
It's not about being asked to show ID. It is all about being singled out from a host of people all performing the same act.
Gmonkeh feels he was singled out because the color of his skin was different than the other photographers. Not being there and seeing what the cops were seeing ... I dunno if that was the only or primary reason he was singled out ... but if it was racially motivated ... then gmonkeh should exercise every God given unalienable right that our founding fathers have granted to an individual citizen in making a giant stink.
If it wasn't racially motivated, then the police should sit down with gmonkeh and explain their reasoning for questioning his photography/actions and not the others.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Regards,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
What we have is a shooter being questioned unnecessarily by two cops, wasting both their time and the shooter's time.
The fact that their were other folks shooting who were Caucasian and not similarly treated would lend credence to him being racially profiled. To say it was because he had a DSLR is silly because someone who was up to no good would use gear that would not draw attention to themselves. Even for the "uninitiated" this is pretty much common sense especially for two allegedly "street-wise" cops.
I don't object to the police questioning someone who is acting suspiciously but I do object to them acting stupidly and harassing someone w/o cause.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
... Gmonkeh feels he was singled out because the color of his skin was different than the other photographers. Not being there and seeing what the cops were seeing ... I dunno if that was the only or primary reason he was singled out ... but if it was racially motivated ... then gmonkeh should exercise every God given unalienable right that our founding fathers have granted to an individual citizen in making a giant stink.
If it wasn't racially motivated, then the police should sit down with gmonkeh and explain their reasoning for questioning his photography/actions and not the others.
I think this is a rational response to the five pages of postings. In the police favor ... maybe that day they stopped and questioned 20 other people all behaving in a similar manner as gmonkeh ... and the other 20 were white ... in that case I think gmonkeh's perception of racism is wrong ... but if he was the only person singled out for questioning that day, or if all the others (if there were any others) were also non-white ... then I think that based on circumstancial evidence the police are wrong.
The bottom line is that we don't know anything about what motivated the police. But I applaud gmonkeh for taking the time to visit the station and question their action(s). If we all stood up and responsibly questioned those in/with authority when we felt that a wrong has occurred, this country would be a better place ... and we better citizens.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
You say it was a waste of time. Well that's only a conclusion you can draw NOW. The cops had a judgement call to make and they chose to question the photographer. They have no way to defininitely know that he's not up to no good... and their job is to make that determination. I suspect it had a lot more to do with his activities and equipment than the color of his skin... but my suspicion is no more founded than the suspicion that he was stopped soley for the color of his skin.
And that's the whole point.
gmonkeh... you didn't specifically state you were obscenely violated, but titling the thread "racially profiled...", your tone in some of your replies, and you indicating that you called the police department a few days later certainly could lead one to believe you felt you had suffered some great injustice. Reading your story, I simply do not share that conclusion. I don't even see it as more than a mild inconvenience. You suggested that people at the pier were then judging you because the cops were questioning you... well that can happen anywhere, anytime, and I can only reply by saying that I wouldn't worry so much about what other people think. If your story appeared in the newspaper police beat the following weekend with your photo and your name and actually publicly accused you of an unfounded crime I might agree with you, but in this case, well, not so much.
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook
Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Here's the point in the original post that I could see where those two cops thought it was worth checking out gmonkeh. They noticed him, he noticed them. Soon after he decided to walk back to his car. If the cops had seen him first, and if gmonkeh saw them and turned and left....abruptly, it would raise some suspicion. They really can't win for losing here. If they didn't do a meet and greet, and something bad happened soon after, they'd be kicking themselves, thinking...remember that guy we saw... They did the meet and greet, found nothing wrong, but did get a name, just in case.
I don't know how much time actually transpired between the time gmonkeh saw them and turned and left, or how quickly he returned to his car, but it just may have been the thing that raised that suspicion.
Monday morning quarterbacks always think they are better than the game day quarterback, but that usually isn't the case. Anyone that wasn't there and comes to a diffinative conclusion as to the cops thoughts....is just plain arrogant.
Regards,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
No one really knows what was in the mind of the two beat cops, except the two beat cops. I have to put my hand up here and say that I am a cop here in Australia, so I might have a different perspective to other people
Anyway, the main question seems to be "was gmonkeh racially profiled?" ... and the answer to that is "no one knows" except of course the two cops involved. But ask yourself this question... what else had happened that day in that vicinity that the beat cops might have been privy to? Anything... oh, yeah, the only ones that know that are the two cops.
I'm not trying to say that what they did was right or wrong, just asking that people don't jump to conclusions. Sometimes our (police) job is quite hard... damned if you do and damned if you don't! Without knowing all of the facts that occurred on this particular occasion... and that includes what was in the minds of the two cops involved... then we just simply won't be able to come to a difinitive answer.
Like someone else said during the thread... if you haven't broken any laws, then keep on doing what you were doing. Gus hit the nail on the head when he said the local boys and girls in blue just think "oh it's that big bald guy again"... he's now know to them... they know he's not a threat and that he isn't up to anything illegal, so they let him go about his business.
Just a couple of random thoughts from Oz
Cheers,
Kenny
http://www.kenlyonsphotography.com.au
There is nothing irresponsible from looking at a set of facts and drawing a reasonable conclusion from those facts. The questions could have been answered if the two cops had simply explained their actions after running their check and finding nothing amiss. They choose not to do so. That leads me to conclude that they didn't want their motivations known.
Gmonkeh did nothing illegal and nothing suspcious. He only took some pictures.
In my old job I had to conduct a number of potential fraud investigations into individuals' incorrect receipt of benefits. When my investigation was completed I always informed the individual of the outcome and the reasons for the investigation. Its not hard to do when your reasons are valid.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I had imagined that almost every contributor would rather like to feel that they can go about their hobby or business without being interfered with by over zealous law enforcement.
It is frankly laughable to suggest that terrorists would target the location in question and even if they were of a mind to do so that they would wander around in the conspicuous manner of gmonkeh taking photographs.
Ah dear, another disgruntled law abiding citizen who feels uncomfortable going about his daily business and another victory for fear, paranoia and those who would seek to alter our way of life.
Sad times indeed.
Charlie
They challenged authority, fought against tyranny and a great nation, a democracy of liberty and justice for all, was founded as a result.
Those people were who we refer to as patriots!
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots