3 ms·
So the bit that gets left out to the very end is that he wasn't physically detained. The photographer is shooting at a refinery. A cop shows up and asks what t
by geuis 15y ago
So the bit that gets left out to the very end is that he wasn't physically detained.
The photographer is shooting at a refinery. A cop shows up and asks what the guy is doing. Guy says he's an artist. By the guys own admission, the cop was perfectly friendly and polite. Cop asks to see his id, and gives some spiel about how Homeland Security lets them require you to show your ID. Cop runs his license and hands it back and says he can keep on shooting. Cop leaves.
There are two things going on here. First, nationally in some areas there's this push by law enforcement against being photographed, and they try to extend that to public places too. That's very bad and needs to be combatted.
The second thing is the flavor of this article is trying to portray this event in the light of the first situation, and it just plain isn't. If anyone is taking pictures of a major installation and it's not something that normally happens, it's prudent to just nicely ask what the person is doing and move on, which is what happened here.
The photographer wasn't physically detained or arrested. The cop didn't want to look at the photos or try to make him delete them. Just because you feel like you are being detained doesn't mean you are.
I am a photographer too. I got all bristly when I first started reading this, only to reach the end and see that nothing happened. I've gotten face to face with people who think they can can control what people take pictures of.
This, however, is not one of those situations.
- MichaelApproved 15y agoThe concern is that the law is so broad that it could be abused. In this case the officer let him go about his business but what will happen in the next case? This rule is so subjective that it can justifiably be used at times other than in the spirit in which it was designed for.
- archangel_one 15y agoWhat law? The article refers to a "special order" of the LAPD which directs the officers to question photographers, but doesn't mention any laws as far as I can see.
- tptacek 15y agoWhat specific law are you referring to? A police department's general orders are not laws. They're directives to the police, and they're confined to those powers already lawfully conferred to the police. A department's general orders cannot meaningfully include things like "arrest photographers on sight".
- hmottestad 15y agoI'm must say. It's a terrible article, it leads you on like a drunk college girl, just to be left in the dumps a page later. Where is the "this is what happened" part? Why make the reader think that the photographer was thrown in jail? Why not just come right out and say: Photographer questioned on-site regarding the photographing of a refinery. Photographer feels molested, but is actually quite fine. Laws about questioning photographers about photographing uncommon places are too broad and rely on the officers own interpretation of esthetic. Something should be done. Tada.