Seriously, what the f**k is wrong with UK police these days? They seem to take pride in intense harassment of photographers of any stripe.
(Links here to other recent cases.)
US site: PhotographyIsNotACrime. (Deadly Ernest pointed to this article.)
That site also has a video of the BART shooting. What I don't get is: a dozen people saw and filmed the copper shooting an unarmed man in the back, killing him. Why hasn't he yet been charged with anything, much less murder? How come police apparently can get away with shooting people? (Even in peaceful Denmark, there was a protest in the nineties where police shot at the crowd. So far as I know, nothing was ever resolved from the official "investigation".)
19 comments:
This is just the consequence of living in a police-state. There are few free places left on the planet, unless you make a conscious effort to ignore and repudiate the enforcers and those who send them out into the world.
It's even worse in the USA, see this article below where the fellow was participating in a photo contest run by the same organisation that had him arrested.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/
These incidents seem to be becoming the norm and are very disconcerting. Although many shopping precincts are now private property; most streets and common areas carry no restrictions on normal photography. M.P. Austin Mitchell is supposed to be sorting this, but nothing positive has yet happened.
All courts are commercial corporations (maritime law) and the Police are their enforcement officers now. The clear duty of the Police used to be to uphold the Peace.
Eolake, I will share some stuff on this by email and you may like to post any of it that you feel is appropriate or useful to others.
I bet jotting "...lock-blade knife he uses to sharpen his pencils..." down in the books made them proud! lmao!
Seriously, though, I believe that there is an even bigger underlying *problem* lying *up ahead* and...I think the police are just trying to keep a lid on it...as being instructed...w/out trying to cause hysteria. Sadly, there are going to be cases where they will make mistakes but...there are many documents of pictures being shot of, say, the Twin Towers prior to 9/11, for example.
The world's eyes have been opened just a little bit wider, since 2001, and, sadly, times -- most likely -- won't be getting any better anytime soon. :-(
On another note (and country), I was in DK, in '90, and was, innocently, taking some video of the train when, all of a sudden, a train personnel jumped out and told me to STOP shooting video! I thought that the oddest thing but...in this day and age, I understand (and tolerate) the *hypervigilance* much better.
I would rather the police error on caution than have more 9/11-magnitude incidents happen right under all of our noses; wouldn't you?!
G'day tc,
Terrorists do NOT have to go around taking photos of buildings before attacking them, mainly because they need the structural details. The full plans and structural details are usually readily available from the relevant local government authorities either free or for a small fee if you want a copy to go.
Apart from that it's dammed easy to make hidden films or shots, it's only the honest people who have their cameras openly displayed.
hell, how often in films do people get shots of offices etc from other buildings near by, and always from the roof or inside, never on a public street. The police will ever only be harassing honest people through being over zealous on instructions from higher up.
There is no such thing as "erring on the side of caution" since police-state "hypervigilance" will never stop terrorists. Only a fully armed and aware populace can do that. And that is the only thing the state fears worse than it fears terrorism.
"I would rather the police error on caution than have more 9/11-magnitude incidents happen right under all of our noses; wouldn't you?!"
If it worked like that, yeah. But this is like going around shooting all the dogs you see, on the hope that one of them will be a dangerous lion.
I remember during the Gulf War they removed trash cans from railway stations. It was just a precaution, Britain was "hosting" the American strike force, and retaliation could be expected.
Removing trash cans reduced hiding places in populated areas. It is yielding to terrorism. Shutting down the rail network would be losing to terrorism.
I can see some disruption of civil liberty as being reasonable, for example denying vehicular access on station approach on match day, this already policy before the Arndale Center bombing. Closing the station for match day is unreasonable. Though I had no problem being evacuated from a building once an alert is given, I can see the temporary disruption as being reasonable.
Of course at some point you realize you have permitted too much, and are wondering if it's gone too far.
I wonder how much overt security is just to appease the voting populace, showing "action", which you must admit was mandated by the masses (if you believe the press).
G'day, Deadly Ernest...
"Terrorists do NOT have to go around taking photos of buildings before attacking them, mainly because they need the structural details."
Uh, yes...that's right. Along with your expert analysis, I have found yet another reason for the *silliness*:
Bruce Schneier, of The Guardian (UK), wrote an article, last June, to shed some light on the issue:
"Terrorists taking pictures is a quintessential detail in any good movie."
Oh and...there were also some interesting blog comments in response to this article, as well.
Eolake said...
"...If it worked like that, yeah. But this is like going around shooting all the dogs you see, on the hope that one of them will be a dangerous lion."
I wonder how many "dangerous lions" have been caught; how many attacks foiled checking out the loitering *dogs* that the authorities have happened upon, since 9/11. I have heard of several. Please don't think that photographers are the *only* people that have been singled out...
Now see what it must feel like...to be someone of a different race. That is part of some of their everyday existence...and that shit has been going on for WAY LONGER than this issue w/the photographers!
Kent McManigal said...
"There is no such thing as "erring on the side of caution" since police-state "hypervigilance" will never stop terrorists..."
As stated, in my response to Eo, I have heard of several terrorist plots being foiled and...if you read the news, you would know and say same; so...your statement is not entirely correct. Granted, it is not a perfect system (and what system is?!), but...works better than turning a blind eye.
"Only a fully armed and aware populace can do that. And that is the only thing the state fears worse than it fears terrorism."
Sadly, we see all too often just how irresponsible even a small populace is with a weapon. I would fear for my life, were our nation to become "fully armed"...and I'm a sharpshooter! lol!
Total *anarchy* would reign without the police who are simply trying to prevent people who lack respect for their fellow man's person and things and any person who is in any position of authority, from shooting off...first with their mouth and then from the hip!
Not all cops are bad cops. Most want to help keep everyone safe. They're probably just a tad bit SICK of everyone dumping on them when they're the ones that go out and try to keep peace amongst idiots that don't know how to behave, socially, and are either a danger to themselves and others, or a menace.
How do you s'pose it would feel to have a gang of dudes walk toward you and nobody came to stop you from getting your assed kicked for some silly-ass reason?! Your solution would render you in the pen...w/quite a few more dudes to fend off; no weapon, there and...quite a long stay. Oh, and...also in your scenario, there would be, say, 3-4 weapons pointed at you...to your 1?! How's your idea sounding, now?!
What you suggest is totally juvenile so please stop coming here and *preaching* your message about being fully-armed! It's a fucking pipe dream! Some day, you'll grow up and realize that ALL of us will ALWAYS have someone to answer to, in this life...like it or not.
Personally, I think a man that has to walk around w/a weapon is a man filled with fear. Put the weapon down, dude, and make a positive impact in this world, while you still can! You've got a grandchild (yeah...I've been over to visit your blog!). Grandkids don't need to be brought up in that kind of *bucking-the-system*-type environment and attitude...Grandpa! :-)
- you can not trust anyone with the gun. A gun holder being a police officer would not save you from the fact that he is an idiot or drunk or both.
Good points, TC.
Much as I'm an anarchist and libertarian at heart, I think we must realize we simply won't have a peaceful world until we have sane and peaceful humans in it, and that's a friggin way off.
tc - You got so many things wrong, I'm not even sure where to start. I am not a grandfather; I have 3 children, ranging in age from 1 1/2 to 21.
"An armed society is a polite society." The only people who have anything to fear from a fully armed population are the ones who wish to harm innocent people, and wish them to be unable to resist effectively.
I am an armed person; I am not paranoid and have never "pulled a gun" on anyone. I am polite to strangers and am willing to help some who others might be afraid to help because I know I could handle the problem should the person not be the person-in-need that they appear to be. My kids have been, and will be, raised to understand the same simple concepts of self sufficiency and neighborliness.
Most people who are armed never cause any problems, and forbidding weapons to everyone will only affect the good folks anyways. Remember that there are also laws against theft, murder, and assault that don't stop the aggressors either.
I do keep up with the news, but I understand the "need" for governments to claim success in order to keep the populace content with the rights violations. I have also read the truth behind some of these "foiled plots" months after the news broke. Even the mainstream media often reports the corrected story eventually, though not with the enthusiasm that the original claim was reported. "Foiled Terror Plot!!" is much more exciting than "Oops. It Was All a Misunderstanding".
Perhaps not all cops are bad. I await proof of your contention. Until I see the good cops expose and arrest the bad ones I remain unconvinced. They do nothing to keep society "safe", but are like bored parents who don't care what happens as long as no one disturbs them.
If people were really all that bad, no amount of "law enforcement" could rein them in. Most people have no desire to harm others, no matter what the paranoid and fearful may claim.
"Anarchy" is not the same as "chaos". Chaos is what we have now. Anarchy (not the socialistic/communistic nihilism that is mistakenly called "anarchy") simply means no rulers, but doesn't mean "no rules".
Only when the risk of being a bad guy is too high do those who have no respect for others behave. Cops and the law have little effect. Surveys of imprisoned bad guys in the US have consistently shown that they fear running into an armed "victim" much more than being arrested.
In your scenario, I would rather be wrongly arrested for defending myself with a weapon than be killed. ("better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" the saying goes.) And, I would rather be facing 3 or 4 weapons with my one, than with none. Your math is faulty.
Your contention that I am filled with fear is hilarious. The truth seems self-evident. Which of us keep reciting fearful doomsday scenarios? I say it is time for everyone to stop abdicating the basic human responsibility to take care of yourself and your loved ones to the state. Children and grandchildren don't need to be raised as property of the state, but as fully responsible adults who are equipped, mentally, emotionally, and physically, to handle themselves as real adult human beings, rather than as sheep. I have never said that there is no one to answer to. I am simply mature enough to know who I DON'T answer to.
If Eolake would rather I didn't come here and comment, I will respect his wishes, of course.
Kent McManigal said...
"I am not a grandfather; I have 3 children, ranging in age from 1 1/2 to 21."
Forgive my error in calling you a grandfather. It has been a while, since visiting your blog. I just *happened upon* a pic of you and your family and saw a baby.
"Your contention that I am filled with fear is hilarious."
I said "...a man..." and meant it in a general sense. AnyONE who feels that they need to carry a gun...
and...
"If Eolake would rather I didn't come here and comment, I will respect his wishes, of course."
If this is in reference to: "... so please stop coming here and *preaching* your message about being fully-armed!" I believe you singled out the first part of that comment. I wasn't saying to not come here and comment. It would just be nice if you had something *other than* the *fully-armed* propaganda to impart to us, once in awhile. :-)
And me, I don't mind whatever people say.
Though variety is always welcome.
I don't know if you are still tracking the Oakland shooting.
Last I heard they had eye-witness accounts that he warned "I'm going to use my Taser", and he drew the wrong weapon in error.
Today there is a memorial service for several officers who were killed in Oakland last Saturday in an unrelated incident. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032300287.html
Oakland is not a good city to be a cop in. It has some of the most depressed areas in this end of the state.
You don't use a Taser on the back of your victim's head.
I've never used a Taser or a gun, so I wouldn't know.
I just know that in the small hours of one of the worst days (New Years Eve/Day) and in one of the hardest to police areas a tragedy happened.
Post a Comment