| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/07/2015 06:01:49 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
03/07/2015 06:05:24 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
03/07/2015 06:17:49 PM · #3 |
| Only once have I been told to not take photos of a building. It was the Arnold Palmer Childrens Hospital. Of course it was for some challenge (I don't remember) but I was told to cease and desist... |
|
|
|
03/07/2015 06:30:05 PM · #4 |
| I don't understand the restrictions for buildings shot from a public space. Someone with ill intent will always find an easy way to achieve it. Maybe while the officer is distracted harassing the photographer. |
|
|
|
03/07/2015 06:34:30 PM · #5 |
| Mine was the Fountain Plaza Central Fountain in Dallas. Apparently one can shoot with a hand-held camera, but when I set up the tripod, security descended upon me like a duck on a June bug. |
|
|
|
03/07/2015 06:45:51 PM · #6 |
About time. The situation has been getting downright ridiculous. If you're photographing something, there must be some nefarious purpose...
|
|
|
|
03/07/2015 07:09:58 PM · #7 |
|
|
|
03/08/2015 09:34:18 AM · #8 |
I like this part.
The city will also provide training for deputies specifically on the subject of “interacting with photographers or members of the public who are taking photos in public places.”
I am envisioning a training session that goes like this.
"They aren't doing anything wrong, leave them alone". Cheapest training they ever had to run. |
|
|
|
03/08/2015 09:59:14 AM · #9 |
| Training? Why weren't they already trained? How can you properly enforce laws if you don't know them? |
|
|
|
03/08/2015 03:04:48 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Training? Why weren't they already trained? How can you properly enforce laws if you don't know them? |
Perhaps because it is not all that simple. Rules are subject to change due to things like the jurisdiction one is in, what legal parameters are in place and other similar issues.
You must also remember that post 911 everything was suspect in the eyes of security personnel and they were probably informed to question everything.
As far as your comment regarding "How can you properly enforce laws if you don't know them?" I seriously doubt that there is a person alive (including judges) who is familiar with ALL of the laws of the land.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/08/2015 03:49:51 PM · #11 |
"The training will be provided through a newsletter and will be given to all deputies assigned to patrol."
I have been prevented from taking photos of buildings numerous times. Mind you, taking photos of a building from public property (i.e. sidewalks, across the street), is not the same as being on the property itself (which is considered private) and being told you cannot photograph it. So taking one step backward, across the property line and onto the sidewalk, resolved the issue. Much to the consternation of the security guard :) |
|
|
|
03/08/2015 04:44:51 PM · #12 |
| I've been questioned by a security guard when taking some pictures of a refinery from the sidewalk. We actually had a pretty friendly discussion on the subject of balancing safety and freedom with regard to photography. |
|
|
|
03/09/2015 12:43:07 AM · #13 |
| I had an agent On my way! tell me to stop shooting the federal courthouse in Eugene. The confusing part was he assured me there was a court order forbidding photos, but it's hard to know what's what. |
|
|
|
03/10/2015 05:33:39 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Mike:
Training? Why weren't they already trained? How can you properly enforce laws if you don't know them? |
Perhaps because it is not all that simple. Rules are subject to change due to things like the jurisdiction one is in, what legal parameters are in place and other similar issues.
You must also remember that post 911 everything was suspect in the eyes of security personnel and they were probably informed to question everything.
As far as your comment regarding "How can you properly enforce laws if you don't know them?" I seriously doubt that there is a person alive (including judges) who is familiar with ALL of the laws of the land.
Ray |
I'd expect them not to know the more intricate details of criminal code, but you'd think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, being the most fundamental of laws and not having changed for some 200 years would be at the top of the list for the most basic of training.
And no, "Because Terrorism and 9/11" as I was told, isn't a valid reason.
Message edited by author 2015-03-10 22:18:28. |
|
|
|
03/11/2015 12:28:01 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'd expect them not to know the more intricate details of criminal code, but you'd think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, being the most fundamental of laws and not having changed for some 200 years would be at the top of the list for the most basic of training.
And no, "Because Terrorism and 9/11" as I was told, isn't a valid reason. |
Knowing the intricate details of the criminal code is something that I doubt anyone has mastered. If indeed they had, then there would be no disputes before the courts.
As far as the examples you provide, you do know that there are constitutional challenges on a regular basis, so it would seem that not everyone agrees with your premise.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/11/2015 07:42:23 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'd expect them not to know the more intricate details of criminal code, but you'd think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, being the most fundamental of laws and not having changed for some 200 years would be at the top of the list for the most basic of training.
And no, "Because Terrorism and 9/11" as I was told, isn't a valid reason. |
Knowing the intricate details of the criminal code is something that I doubt anyone has mastered. If indeed they had, then there would be no disputes before the courts.
As far as the examples you provide, you do know that there are constitutional challenges on a regular basis, so it would seem that not everyone agrees with your premise.
Ray |
The point is that no one is discussing the intricate details of the criminal code. It's the fundamental rights guaranteed in the the documents that are the basis for all laws. There were no new laws inserted into the nooks and crannies of the criminal code that tried to make photography a crime and thus necessitated a challenge. It was law enforcement, making stuff up and overplaying the "Terrorism and 9/11" card to justify their actions. Whether it was the officers acting on their own initiative or at the direction of their superiors…who knows?
The important thing is that now, hopefully, the deputies will now focus on actual crimes and understand that just because someone has a camera and isn't taking tourist photos that they're NOT up to no good.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2015 11:13:06 AM · #17 |
Here's another recent incident.
Pa Arrest |
|
|
|
03/11/2015 11:29:09 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Here's another recent incident.
Pa Arrest |
That story definitely needs more details. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 08:09:34 PM EDT.
