Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: BobDavid on November 21, 2016, 01:38:09 am
-
So I am working on a series of photos on substations. Nothing serious, just for the fun of it. Early yesterday, about an hour into the shoot, the LAW stops by to investigate. A deputy asked me to explain myself. I asked if I was trespassing. She said no. I asked if I was breaking the law. She said no. I then said I am taking pictures of the substation. She asked me why. I told her that I am an artist and that I think substations are interesting. ... She asked to see my license. I reminded her that I was not trespassing nor was I breaking the law as she had just confirmed. I remained calm and polite. She told me she was becoming impatient. I agreed I was too. I asserted that I was not breaking the law. She did not back down. I contemplated for a moment or two on what to do. On the one hand, I wasn't doing anything wrong. On the other hand, I didn't want to get shot. So I showed her my ID. She went back into her squad car. A colleague pulled up in an unmarked vehicle. I took several pictures of them. Unfortunately, my telephoto lens was not handy. ... Later, I telephoned the Sheriff's department and asked to speak to the deputy's sergeant. I explained that I take pictures of substations. I mentioned that I would be photographing another substation later this week--preferably at night. I told him which one. He said that particular one is out of the county's jurisdiction. He was most cordial. ... I emailed him a few samples of my artwork. I offered to send the deputy who investigated me a signed 8" X 10" print. Starting now, I think I will inform law enforcement as to my whereabouts when I go out photographing, especially during nighttime. I've been stopped several times now.
-
Sub stations are a target for terrorists and it looks like they were only doing their job. Perhaps it would be better to choose another subject unless you enjoy confrontations?
-
Indeed; whilst being a photographer can be fun, being a cop is something else, and far more serious.
It's part of what a cop does: look for suspicious circumstances and actions. Nobody other than a snapper looks at such installations as works of art: more are they considered an ugly intrusion into life and the neighbourhood. Be honest: who'd choose to buy next door to one?
I'd imagine that police have access to the Internet, so why not simply give them one's card and ask them to tune in and check one out? I'm considering taking my butt down to the big smoke and spending a while shooting inside a large chain store. There is security, of course, and I suppose I should ask the PR department for clearance first, but I suspect that they will refuse for the same reasons David's cop was less than thrilled: security worries. Why would anyone want to photograph inside a shop unless they were up to something unpleasant? The concept of OOF glitter, point-of-sales publicity materials etc. and pretty señoritas attending clients or just standing around looking charming might seem doubtfull. Hell, it is doubtful, but it would please me nonetheless!
Rob
-
I was shooting in the Glasgow underground, Scotland a few months ago, which is legal with a small camera, no flash, or model shoots. Was approached by two persons at different stations. The first said it wasn't allowed which he was completely wrong. The second stated that cctv had been following me and they thought I was planning a crime. They had a job to do but at the time I was hacked off. :(
-
I am glad that you decided to show the police your ID. You may not have been required to, and you may have been in your rights not to (depends on the jurisdiciton), but strategically, I feel it was the right decision you made.
But
What do you think would have happened, if you had just shown your ID to the police officer when first asked? The whole thing could have quickly become a non-issue.
Yes, you were not trespassing
Yes, you were not breaking any laws
Were you doing something that might be considered suspicious? Yes
The police have a responsibility to investigate that which appears to be suspicious and part of that investigation would include getting the name of the person.
Refusing to show ID... do you think that will make you appear more or less suspicious? What did you think the police officer's reaction would be?
What do you think this police officer's opinion of photographers is after this incident?
BTW, telling a police officer that you are losing patience with them is probably not a good idea if you want to avoid escalation. That statement may be construed as aggressive as it is implying (threatening?) a potential future action.
"Starting now, I think I will inform law enforcement as to my whereabouts when I go out photographing, especially during nighttime. I've been stopped several times now. "
That might be a good idea. Especially if you are in an area where there is a smaller police department. Please keep in mind that you had far more information than the police did concerning this incident.... you knew that you were just a photo nut and not a terrorist nut. But the police officer did not know this. I don't know where you were, but there are areas in the US where the police have a consequentialist attitude when it comes to "public service".
It sounded like you handled this pretty well and remained calm. I am glad it did not escalate.
Next time, you might not be lucky enough to have a police office as patient as this one was.
-
Here in the US, it would have been completely within my right to not have cooperated with the deputy. If substations are terrorist targets, then it is the responsibility of the utility company to install barricades, hire armed guards, and employ video surveillance.
My attorney chastised me for being intimidated and handing over my ID. The ACLU confirmed that under the Bill of Rights, my civil liberties were violated.
I will continue with the substation series. It's possible that I will hire an off-duty cop to accompany me during my next substation photo shoot, which will be a nighttime photo.
I intend on exhibiting the photos.
https://www.google.com/search?q=substations&espv=2&biw=1163&bih=680&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-iOjpkrrQAhVJKGMKHT0-DqMQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1.65
-
This provides another reason for publishing your book (including some substations). You could then carry one with you on your outings and show it first to anyone who questions what you are doing.
-
This provides another reason for publishing your book (including some substations). You could then carry one with you on your outings and show it first to anyone who questions what you are doing.
I have several photos in my car and on my phone. The deputy did not take me up on my offer to have a look see. If I was an African American or a Muslim, the situation may have turned out differently.
The cop had every right to ask me what I was up to. I explained why I was there and what I was doing. I invited her to run my license plate and match it up with my name.
-
Here is a copy of the email I sent Sergeant Clegg.
Dear Sergeant Clegg,
Thank you for returning my telephone call on behalf of Deputy Piper. As promised, I have attached some samples of my artwork on electrical substations. I am working on a series that will ultimately consist of twenty photographs. Each photo will be printed on 20" X 20" archival paper. A limited edition box set will be available for collectors.
I extend my apologies to Deputy Piper. I was curt, nothing personal. Apparently being atop a ladder on the perimeter of an electric substation with a camera raises suspicions. Ironically, I am afraid of heights. A concerned passerby telephoned the department. Piper was dispatched to investigate.
Incidentally, I took a side view photograph of the Deputy's squad car. I may want to incorporate that element into the final image. Of course, I ask your permission to do so.
I take most of my photographs after dark. I do not trespass, and I do not take photos that may be construed as disrespectful. I am more than willing to inform the Sarasota County Sheriff's Department of my whereabouts so as not to alarm citizens and the department. In fact, should a squad car be in my vicinity, I would appreciate being checked up on. I have been threatened in the past.
As a gesture of goodwill, I'd be happy to send Deputy Piper a hand-signed print (8" X 10") from today's photo outing.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Rosinsky
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL
-
Sure, we have to be vigilant. Sure we are going to have to interact with the police. You did a good job. The officer, however, crossed the line. She had plenty of available evidence not to have required your ID or to become impatient with you. In your situation her patience should have been endless.
This was a tiny incident. There are many others. And in my opinion THIS is how you know when the terrorists are winning. It isn't how many car bombs they set off. It isn't how many people they behead. It is when the culture they are attacking trades freedom for security.
We need to remember, our government can makes us almost completely secure. It is entirely possible. The key words upon which the meaning of this statement hinge are "us" and "completely secure". Who is "us"? What will it be like to be "completely secure"?
-
My attorney chastised me for being intimidated and handing over my ID. The ACLU confirmed that under the Bill of Rights, my civil liberties were violated.
You might want to be careful about this. It is not as simple or cut and dried as some may think. "No Supreme Court decisions directly address a photographer’s First Amendment rights." (reference below) Isolated cases have been decided, but there is no overall ruling.
I recommend reading http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment
It is and will probably stay a complicated issue.
-
Terrorists like to target places where there are lots of people. Take the incident at The Pulse in Orlando, or the bombing in Paris, or crazed gunmen mowing down innocents in Columbine, Charleston, and other communities. If terrorists are interested in targeting the power grid, it will be through cyber attacks, not messing up substations off the main grid.
We live in an era of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. A 70-year old man was run off the road and beaten up a few days ago here in my hometown, Sarasota. The guy who beat up the old man was young. The bully did not like the old man's gay pride bumper sticker. While pounding the crap out of him, the bully raged, "This is now Trump Country." The article was buried in the local press. There are no searchable accounts of this on the internet.
I watched two interesting films over the weekend: "Trumbo" and "The Red Menace." The latter is a propaganda film produced and filmed at Republic Studios in the late 1940s. Trumbo is about HUAC's assault on people who were naive social activists during the depression and post depression era. There are stunning similarities between the witch hunts of the early cold war era and the current political climate in Western Europe and the US. ... A funny twist of fate: Chancellor Merkel is now the preeminent spokeswoman for human rights and international cooperation.
-
You might want to be careful about this. It is not as simple or cut and dried as some may think. "No Supreme Court decisions directly address a photographer’s First Amendment rights." (reference below) Isolated cases have been decided, but there is no overall ruling.
I recommend reading http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment
It is and will probably stay a complicated issue.
Bob could claim both 1st (free speech) and 4th amendments (unreasonable search and seizure). Not sure there is a ground for ACLU or lawyers though. Bob wasn't prevented from taking photographs, so no 1st amendment violation. He was temporarily "seized," (i.e., stopped in doing what he was doing), but was in "unreasonable"?
A quote from a lawyer:
There is a three part test the United States Supreme Court developed to evaluate reasonableness.
The gravity of the public interest which will be served by the seizure
The degree to which the seizure advances public interest
How greatly the seizure interferes with personal liberties
Based on the above, what officer did can not easily be described as "unreasonable." There certainly is a public interest in preventing terrorism. "How greatly..." I would say it amounted to a minor inconvenience, thus again not "unreasonable."
In short, I think both Bob and the police officer acted reasonably under the circumstances (bar the "losing patience" part).
-
I had a state trooper pull his weapon on me once when I reached under the seat for my purse. He was nervous because a fellow officer had been killed at a traffic stop not long before. I'm all for protecting our rights, but you are really overreacting if you called your attorney and the ACLU because you were asked some questions. You were allowed to continue. I don't get it. If I were to look at that first shot, as a cop, I wouldn't get the claim it was art. Not that it isn't but it certainly isn't obvious.
Sharon
-
... If terrorists are interested in targeting the power grid, it will be through cyber attacks, not messing up substations off the main grid..
I beg to differ. NATO specifically targeted electrical and heating substations in the civilian parts of Belgrade during the bombing. The goal was to shut them down so that the population remains without electricity and heating, hoping that would cause a revolt against the government (Milosevic) and overturn it. My friend, who was staying in my apartment at the time, was knocked off by a bomb that hit one just a few hundred yards from the apartment.
-
I had a state trooper pull his weapon on me once when I reached under the seat for my purse. He was nervous because a fellow officer had been killed at a traffic stop not long before. I'm all for protecting our rights, but you are really overreacting if you called your attorney and the ACLU because you were asked some questions. You were allowed to continue. I don't get it. If I were to look at that first shot, as a cop, I wouldn't get the claim it was art. Not that it isn't but it certainly isn't obvious.
Sharon
The lawyer is a close friend. The ACLU volunteer and I attend lunch on a weekly basis. The cop raised her voice and said she was losing her patience. I calmly said I was too. I kept my calm, my hands were in clear sight, and I was wearing a T-Shirt with the logo of my erstwhile photography company emblazoned on it. I don't think the deputy was out of line by asking a few questions, though her intimidation tactics were. ... If I hadn't shown her my ID, I would have been hauled off in her squad car and not allowed to continue--possibly handcuffed.
-
I beg to differ. NATO specifically targeted electrical and heating substations in the civilian parts of Belgrade during the bombing. The goal was to shut them down so that the population remains without electricity and heating, hoping that would cause a revolt against the government (Milosevic) and overturn it. My friend, who was staying in my apartment at the time, was knocked off by a bomb that hit one just a few hundred yards from the apartment.
NATO tactics in the midst of a hot war caused "collateral" damage. But in the US, to my knowledge, substations have not been targeted.
-
NATO tactics in the midst of a hot war caused "collateral" damage. But in the US, to my knowledge, substations have not been targeted.
How would you know that?
We covered a very hot issue here regarding beach erosion. The group installing the erosion control efforts on the beach hired local police for traffic control and I had a couple of run-ins with them trying to stop me from photographing what they were doing, some of which violated state and federal regulations. One poor young cop called his sergeant and said in a high voice "She won't take no for an answer!" That actually made me laugh in the heat of the moment and I said yes I will take no for an answer but the sergeant told the police officer to let me shoot. So I didn't pursue the issue any further with the police. If they had tried to completely shut me out, then I would have pursued legal action. Once they tried to stop me from seeing that they were installing illegal drainage of the wetlands. Didn't work. I got the shots and the group got the fine.
Sharon
-
NATO tactics in the midst of a hot war caused "collateral" damage...
Nope.
Not collateral damage, but purposefully targeted. Given my personal interest in the situation, I remember a NATO commander publicly stating the purpose of targeting substations as I described above, to "persuade" the population to react in a certain way (a textbook definition of terrorism, including state terrorism).
-
Nope.
Not collateral damage, but purposefully targeted. Given my personal interest in the situation, I remember a NATO commander publicly stating the purpose of targeting substations as I described above, to "persuade" the population to react in a certain way (a textbook definition of terrorism, including state terrorism).
Being caught in the crossfire of war is out of the realm of my imagination. I hope it is something I will not experience. Just out of curiosity, how did/do your compatriots view Tito?
-
...Just out of curiosity, how did/do your compatriots view Tito?
Benevolently during his era, and with nostalgia these days.
-
A couple of years ago, I was out taking photos of my house. Around 10 PM, a Polk County sheriff's dept. cruiser stopped by. The deputy asked what I was doing. I told him I was taking pictures of my house. He said there's no law against taking pictures at night on the street. He said he was responding to a call, probably from one of the neighbors. Then another cruiser pulled up. The other deputy asked if I could recommend a digital camera for his daughter in high school. We chatted for a few minutes. Before they left, I asked if they'd park side by side for a picture. They were happy to oblige. I didn't get ID'd.
As for yesterday's photo outing, I didn't capture anything particularly interesting. I will return to the site. However, I will be sure to telephone the authorities and give them a heads-up.
-
Benevolently during his era, and with nostalgia these days.
Well, I am happy you've been able to make a life for yourself in the US. I am sure you've experienced much loss and sadness. How could any of us have known by viewing the wonderful and imaginative photos you post.
-
The electrical grid is a strategic target. In times of war it is an important target. The grid would be very low yield for terrorists. Easy to destroy. Easy to repair. Minor inconvenience. No comparison between a wartime strategic objective and a terrorist attack. Yes, a large well planned multi-site terrorist attack on the grid might help achieve other objectives, but no real value in itself. Not really the point here though. I appreciate the law keeping an eye on infrastructure for whatever reasons there might be.
I also don't think the letter of the law is of much significance here either. I think the important issue is that law enforcement personnel need to be part of the community. It should not be us vs them. I would have appreciated the officer asking me what I was doing. I would not appreciate the request for ID. She should have been able, in a very cordial way, to have determined the nature of the incident and then moved on. Both parties would have felt good about it. In this case there were issues of trust and intrusions on freedom. Though slight, there was never need for it at all. That is the point.
-
You're on a roll, Bob. Keep rolling.
-
You're on a roll, Bob. Keep rolling.
Thank you, Russ. That is good advice.
-
I continue to be amazed that police and rent-a-cops think that the people setting up equipment to take careful pictures of something are potential terrorists. Wouldn't a real terrorist simply stroll by with their phone camera so as to not attract attention? I've been stopped taking pictures of public courthouses from the street in Boston (legal), buildings in NYC from the street (legal), light trails on cars at night from an overpass (legal - the same cop came back twice and told me not to be there if he came back again). It just seems like security theater or ignorance of the law to me.
That being said, there's little upside to forcing a confrontation with a real police officer (as opposed to a rentacop) and a pretty big downside. Having been in a situation where cops pulled their guns on me (unrelated to photography and they were misinformed), I can tell you that you never want to get to that situation. Even if the ultimate outcome is okay.
-
I continue to be amazed that police and rent-a-cops think that the people setting up equipment to take careful pictures of something are potential terrorists. Wouldn't a real terrorist simply stroll by with their phone camera so as to not attract attention?
Maybe the police read photography forums where a lot of the posts are about how lousy cell phones are and how "real" photography needs a "real" camera. ;D
But yeah, when, in my case, there is an old fat guy setting up a camera on a tripod and taking 20 minutes to take one shot is hardly fitting into the signature of someone trying to sneak a tactical picture. ;D
-
I am going to print this and keep it in my glove compartment. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers-what-do-if-you-are-stopped-or-detained-taking-photographs
As mentioned earlier in this thread, the deputies from Polk County were polite, respectful, and immediately acknowledged I was exercising my right to take photographs at night from the street. They did not ask for my ID. We shook hands and introduced ourselves. We all had a good laugh.
-
Bob, the first response of a law officer to a publication by the ACLU might be to slap you into irons. Here's an alternative I've used for a lot of years. http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf. Bert Krages is an attorney who's also an avid and active photographer. His little summary of the law in .PDF format sometimes can get you to a point where you can move on and do what you came to do.
-
Bob, the first response of a law officer to a publication by the ACLU might be to slap you into irons. Here's an alternative I've used for a lot of years. http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf. Bert Krages is an attorney who's also an avid and active photographer. His little summary of the law in .PDF format sometimes can get you to a point where you can move on and do what you came to do.
Thanks for covering my back. I see what you mean about waving an ACLU pamphlet in front of a peace officer. I owe you...
-
Here in the US, it would have been completely within my right to not have cooperated with the deputy.
Of course you would; but that doesn't mean it would have been sensible. I like to quote this epitaph when people stand on their dignity:
Here lies the body of Jonathan Day
Who died defending his right of way.
His way was clear; his right was strong
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
Not collateral damage, but purposefully targeted. Given my personal interest in the situation, I remember a NATO commander publicly stating the purpose of targeting substations as I described above, to "persuade" the population to react in a certain way (a textbook definition of terrorism, including state terrorism).
I can't remember who it was (Roosevelt?) who commented that when you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. History doesn't suggest it works.
Jeremy
-
The biggest problem with all of this is emotion. If a person is easily upset when challenged then he/she will lack common sense and do something silly. Quite often they will know that they are right but being right doesn't always bring the correct solution. Sometimes you have to walk away even though you know the other person is in the wrong, especially when they have a big gun. Recent events in the US means that trigger happy police will act hastily.
-
My attorney chastised me for being intimidated and handing over my ID. The ACLU confirmed that under the Bill of Rights, "my civil liberties were violated".
My father once said to me, when I expressed my outradge when such an issue arose in my youth, "That will look good on your Tombstone".
Civil Liberties are wonderful...you need to be alive to enjoy them.
Peter
-
Recent events in the US means that trigger happy police will act hastily.
That is an offensive, unsupportable, derogatory and uncalled for remark.
-
I can't remember who it was (Roosevelt?) who commented that when you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. History doesn't suggest it works.
Jeremy
I think history shows that it works quite well and is entirely dependent on how good a grip you have and how hard you squeeze. And, off course, eliminating the hearts and minds that will not follow. But as in all things, thank goodness, despotism doesn't last forever. But it can last a long, long time. Rome comes to mind.
-
That is an offensive, unsupportable, derogatory and uncalled for remark.
https://thinkprogress.org/this-is-how-many-people-police-have-killed-so-far-in-2016-7f1aec6b7098#.rrl6vxbjj
A Google search brought up dozens of links. Try searching yourself.
-
In the military we had Regulation 4-16.
The E-4 with the M-16 pointing at you is, at least temporarily, in command of the situation. ;)
Now is not the time to protest. Now is the time to comply and live long enough to complain later...when you don't have a young kid pointing a rifle at you. ;D
I think that can apply to the police. There is a right time and a right way to challenge a decision by a Police Officer.
-
https://thinkprogress.org/this-is-how-many-people-police-have-killed-so-far-in-2016-7f1aec6b7098#.rrl6vxbjj
A Google search brought up dozens of links. Try searching yourself.
What crap like this doesn't tell you is how many of these people needed killing. There are plenty of criminals who fit that description.
-
What crap like this doesn't tell you is how many of these people needed killing. There are plenty of criminals who fit that description.
Unless the suspect is a direct and immediate threat that can not be mitigated by other methods, it should be up to the court to decide if they need killing.
-
Unless the suspect is a direct and immediate threat that can not be mitigated by other methods, it should be up to the court to decide if they need killing.
The source remains irrelevant. The initial comment indicated that police will feel empowered to shoot people unnecessarily due to the change in the political playing field. Then he cites 2016 data would seem to counter his point! Regardless, the comment betrays the kind of stereotyping that liberals usually decry as a sign of being close-minded and intolerant. Would a cop who supported Clinton be more likely to shoot someone without cause because Trump got elected? The whole nature of the comment is both ignorant and offensive.
-
In the military we had Regulation 4-16.
The E-4 with the M-16 pointing at you is, at least temporarily, in command of the situation. ;)
We were sitting in the O club at Eglin Air Force Base in the early 90s when we saw a B2 in a pattern for landing. We jumped in the car to go see it. As it crossed the road, taxiing in toward the hanger I got out and snapped a few pics with my Nikon FG. As we drove off an MP pulled us over and demanded the camera. I gave it to him. He made a few calls and then returned the camera, film intact.
He was enlisted, very polite. I was an officer, also very polite. At that moment he was in the position of authority. I complied accordingly.
Different situation altogether of course. All participants here were essentially 'owned' by the USAF.
-
Unless the suspect is a direct and immediate threat that can not be mitigated by other methods, it should be up to the court to decide if they need killing.
Exactly. Considering how many cops have been shot, though, if you were faced with a guy with a gun pointing your way, what would YOU do? I'd blow is ass away because I'd like to be able to go home to my wife and kids. It was that way in the military and it's that way on the street.
-
I had no idea this topic would set off a firestorm.
I knew from the moment I saw that squad car pull up that I'd have to hand over my ID.
I was also prepared to remain calm and to address the officer with respect.
Before handing over my ID, I acknowledged her concerns. I also repeated my reluctance. Neither of us provoked the other to become emotional, irrational, or stupid. To her credit, she observed I was polite, willing to answer her questions, and posed no threat. It is worth noting my handicap parking pass was in plain sight.
I employed common sense body language: hands in view, relaxed posture, and appropriate eye contact. On a nonverbal level, I communicated respect. That is why she put up with my protestations, at least to the point where she decided she'd had enough.
I harbor no ill will towards her. She did her job. And I did what I wanted to do.