«

Very interesting article.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...mendment_Right

NJ

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:48:59 -0400, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Very interesting article.
>
>http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...mendment_Right
>
>NJ

I have not checked the reference, but photography can be used
in a way that is a right or is a crime. It is by itself no more or
less of a right or crime than carpentry.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:48:59 -0400, Neil Jones wrote:

> Very interesting article.
>
> http://digg.com/political_opinion/
Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_ Right
>
> NJ

Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your right
to photograph any damned thing you want.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> Very interesting article.
>>
>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...mendment_Right
>
>NJ
>
>Photography
>>
>is a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
>limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.
>
>Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
>be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
>assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
>abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
>place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
>case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
>First Amendment.
>
>In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
>the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
>the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
> card.(2)
>
> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>
> Both sides have a point.

the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge. after
that, there is nothing to protect. he's also in public and is subject
to being photographed. and rest assured that word gets around what the
undercover cops look like, photos or not.

> (1) Love that cop talk!
> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
> around the Menu of any camera.

that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.

tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>> Very interesting article.
>>>
>>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...mendment_Right
>>
>>NJ
>>
>>Photography
>>>
>>is a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
>>limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.
>>
>>Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
>>be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
>>assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
>>abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
>>place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
>>case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
>>First Amendment.
>>
>>In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
>>the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
>>the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.
>
>My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>card.(2)

Criminal vandalism.

>The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Nope. No such right.

>Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
>intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
>drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

The rights of citizens override the wants of government employees.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:04:25 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:48:59 -0400, Neil Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Very interesting article.
>>>
>>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/
>> Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_ Right
>>> NJ
>>
>> Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your right
>> to photograph any damned thing you want.
>
> Freedom of the press has been interpreted to allow news photographers to
> intrude on the privacy of any person who is 'in the public eye', so I
> guess it does. Frankly, a press card shouldn't give one a right to
> visually trespass, in my opinion.

'in the publice eye' is a big restriction there - that's the difference.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>> card.(2)
>>
>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>
>> Both sides have a point.
>
>the cop was very clearly in the wrong.

That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.

>he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
>else that was on it.

The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
Constitutional rights.

There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
police officer.

Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.

>at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
>given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
>bystander.

You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
suspect the policemen's version is accurate.

>> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
>> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
>> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
>
>his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.

That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.

> after
>that, there is nothing to protect. he's also in public and is subject
>to being photographed. and rest assured that word gets around what the
>undercover cops look like, photos or not.
>
>> (1) Love that cop talk!
>> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
>> around the Menu of any camera.
>
>that's wonderful, but he broke the law.

You're throwing **** against the wall with a statement like that.
What law was broken?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:19:48 -0700, Savageduck <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On 2009-03-29 13:28:00 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> Very interesting article.
>>>>
>>>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...mendment_Right
>
>NJ
>
>Photography
>
>is
>>>>
>>> a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
>>> limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.
>>>
>>> Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
>>> be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
>>> assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
>>> abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
>>> place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
>>> case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
>>> First Amendment.
>>>
>>> In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
>>> the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
>>> the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.
>>
>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>> card.(2)
>>
>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>
>> Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
>> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
>> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
>>
>> (1) Love that cop talk!
>> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
>> around the Menu of any camera.
>>
>>
>
>Having just retired as a Lieutenant after 25 years in Law enforcement,
>and having been a "photographer" for some 48 years I am always ****ed
>off when I hear of police infringing of rights under the color of Law.
>
>Then regarding your son's "undercover" cop friend, I have my own opinion.
>
>For the most part "undercover" cops are not usually directly involved
>in arrests.

He's part of a drug task force that does make arrests. As I
understand it, they hang out in places where drug deals are made, and
make arrests on-the-spot. He's not "planted" in some gang like you
see in the TV shows.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mar 29, 3:28*pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
> working drug enforcement. *During an arrest awhile back, some
> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
> the ground. *My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
> card.(2)

I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
from a reformatted SD card?

--
YOP...