Police hassling woman for filming

The thing about this is that the police are so dumb. Don't they know that with current technology with tiny button cams video can be done surreptitiously by anyone who really wants to. These days you could often be in some cameras field of view, there are so many scattered about.
She was looking for confrontation, if the police had simply ignored her she would have went home disappointed.
 
In the US this has been going on for half a decade, from real law enforcement, security guards, even mothers who think your pedophile (even thought you weren't shooting pictures of their kids). The point being when you take pictures accept being hassled with a measure of good grace - and run.


First, upheld by the Supremes years ago the police DO have a right to ask you for ID. Refusal may not result in an arrest but it will get you a free ride to police headquarters why they sort it out. Didn't watch the whole video (too boring) but the Police seemed to be extremely professional while maybe your wife wasn't. Don't try to be a lawyer with the police, they have the ability to arrest, the DA decides if there is actually crime committed.
 
I must have seen a dozen of these types of videos in recent weeks with obstreperous uncooperative people interacting with police. They all start the same - police being ultra polite and the person being aggressive. And they all end up in much the same way - with that person in cuffs. I do not blame the police in most of these situations. They are mostly ordinary people doing a job. Sometimes they make mistakes, they are after all human. Its a bigger mistake to treat them like the enemy.

So my lesson is be polite, smile a lot, be cooperative. It seldom fails.

And if your dignity forbids you from doing this because you are a "free man or woman" and "besides you are a citizen and they have no right........etc etc" then just tell your self the following if it helps. Tell yourself that you are more clever than they are and you are gaming them because they are suckers. Then........be polite, smile a lot, be cooperative. There are a couple of phrases we in Australia use a lot which defuse most situations "G'day mate" and "Yeh, no worries". I think the world might be a better place if others tried this more often.

On the other hand if instead of this you begin arguing as if you are a below decks lawyer, about the finer points of law regarding your rights, and throwing accusations and threats of filing a complaint 99% of the time you will lose. Or at least end up in handcuffs in the back of a police car for a while before it is all sorted out.

And 99% of the time my sympathies are still with the cops if the citizen is behaving like a dick. Even though sometimes the cop behaves like a dick too (though in the videos I have seen this is rare).
 
You boys sure like the taste of leather. And to the fellow who said the Supreme Court said you have to ID yourself, that is not true. At all. It depends on state by state. The only time the state can use a patriot act era protection on you having to identify yourself is when the federal government has already suspected you of terrorism.

I applaud the woman in the video. She held her own, and as she stated, there paranoia doesn’t concern her.

As a brown man, in a metropolitan city, Who shoots a lot of photos, I wouldn’t haven’t been able to pull this off like this woman did. So before you tell me and other people on this forum to “stay calm and not play lawyer,” the answer is no. No American should feel subjugation to the police let alone subservient to their blatant abuse of power.
 
Honestly, I don't think police act right in these situations. I've had police officers in NYC tell me that I couldn't photograph in public. That's just not knowing the laws they are supposed to be enforcing. Post 9/11 USA made people, including cops, paranoid.

However, she went looking for a fight and got one. It was predictable. What was the purpose of her video other than to mess with the cops and make them look bad? None. That is only thing I see here. The cops took the bait. They should have ignored her knowing her blatantly not being sneaky meant she was not a threat. I agree with Zuiko. I do not sympathize with either party in these videos. It does nothing to solve the issues. People who love the police will see it one way and people who hate the police will see if the opposite way. Welcome to our times.
 
Agiknee said:
You boys sure like the taste of leather. And to the fellow who said the Supreme Court said you have to ID yourself, that is not true. At all. It depends on state by state. The only time the state can use a patriot act era protection on you having to identify yourself is when the federal government has already suspected you of terrorism.

I applaud the woman in the video. She held her own, and as she stated, there paranoia doesn’t concern her.

As a brown man, in a metropolitan city, Who shoots a lot of photos, I wouldn’t haven’t been able to pull this off like this woman did. So before you tell me and other people on this forum to “stay calm and not play lawyer,” the answer is no. No American should feel subjugation to the police let alone subservient to their blatant abuse of power.
Click to expand...

Thank you. By the way, your photos are excellent. Great stuff.
 
I had to stop watching after a few minutes because she was so painfully obnoxious. Check her other videos; she seems to be a nut whose hobby it is to make the police look bad. And I say this as a guy who has been profiled by the police many times for just taking pictures. But there is no way I could act as annoying as she did.
 
Where are many forms of mental challenges outbreaks. Some might exhibit it on confrontation/hate of police.
Police due to modern and over the board human policies has to deal not only with people braking the law, but those who needs periodical assessment from doctors. But police ain't doctors in psycho ward.
 
Agiknee said:
You boys sure like the taste of leather. And to the fellow who said the Supreme Court said you have to ID yourself, that is not true.
Click to expand...


I'd suggest you google that one. The actual ruling states that if the officer suspects you have committed a crime you need to provide ID. An suspects is a very big gray area. If you have enough cash you can fight it in court, after you been booked, finger printed and given a DNA swap. All deemed legal by the Supremes.
 
Beemermark said:
Actually it was easy to find - In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Larry Dudley Hiibel.



https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/
Click to expand...

So, halfway thru the linked article, there's this:

"All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification."

I'm just a sw engineer, but I'm willing to bet that taking photographs from a sidewalk would fail to rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top