Photographer arrested for not giving police his camera

Here we go again.  What's your view of this piece of photographic news:   www.app.com/story/news/local/ocean-count...r-arrested/21579329/  

The cop is wrong, and the photographer is stupid. Two stubborn idiots make the news, who would have thunk it?

  if he was more cool headed, this could have been avoided 

From what I can tell the guy doesn't seem to be actually working for a legit media outlet.

The website he's supposedly taking photos for seems to be a website started in 2013 and done by one guy named Charlie. I don't see an address (which I think is needed for a registered business), or a list of staff, reporters, editors, circulation dept., etc. - nobody, except one woman's name who according to the site is a single mom writing for the site.

Where are this so-called photo journalist's pictures? I didn't find any photo credits with his name on the site, all I saw were what look like stock photos or poor quality cell phone (or at best p&s) pictures.

I took a look at the site's privacy and legal info. - looks like if you sign up to use the site your information may be sold, etc., so I suppose that might be why they want attention from an incident like this, to help them get more people to follow them.

Both were hot heads

  well that was painful to watch

I don't understand. How was the photographer stupid? I did not hear him raise his voice in any strident way (on the 10+) minute cell phone video). He simply stood his ground.

Or did I miss something?

icepics wrote: From what I can tell the guy doesn't seem to be actually working for a legit media outlet.

The website he's supposedly taking photos for seems to be a website started in 2013 and done by one guy named Charlie. I don't see an address (which I think is needed for a registered business), or a list of staff, reporters, editors, circulation dept., etc. - nobody, except one woman's name who according to the site is a single mom writing for the site.

Where are this so-called photo journalist's pictures? I didn't find any photo credits with his name on the site, all I saw were what look like stock photos or poor quality cell phone (or at best p&s) pictures.

I took a look at the site's privacy and legal info. - looks like if you sign up to use the site your information may be sold, etc., so I suppose that might be why they want attention from an incident like this, to help them get more people to follow them.

<snark>I just love conflation.</snark> Absolutely none of that is relevant. The officer was wrong, period. If the guy was a butthead and handled it wrong, so be it; he got arrested anyway. But it doesn't seem to me that the photographer was going to be sent on his way, property intact.

His employment situation and the website have nothing to do with the situation. He was given access to the scene, right or wrong; at that point his credentials became irrelevant as well. The only issue here is the attempt to confiscate his personal property when no crime had been committed. We don't like that.

Seems pretty one-sided to me: the officer seems to not understand the law.

I saw this already and think the police officer was over reacting.  Big surprise and something you don't hear to often on the news?  

effron wrote: The cop is wrong, and the photographer is stupid. Two stubborn idiots make the news, who would have thunk it?

+1

Well I am with Gary on this.
First someone on the scene gave him access to the area, so they really could not say that he intruded, or was interfering. Which is something he could be charged for.
Second what is defined as being press in this day and age has changed quite a bit. Even some bloggers are considered bonafide news people. While many think that this is not correct, it is usually the entrenched powers that hold this view. So while their following maybe small, they maybe reporting locally. Also this brings up the only charge that could have been tenuously leveled, and that is impersonation, but again the officer would be hard pressed to get that to hold. Also the person who allowed them in is more at fault than the photographer.
Third we still have the Fourth Amendment which states that you do not have to surrender your property, and special effects because someone tells you to. I also would have told the officer no. But then I would have shot with a longer lens outside of the actual scene. Which according to what I saw when I first saw this item, would not have mattered to that officer. He would have wanted the same thing even if the photographer was further away. This is due to the fact that a fellow officer was involved, not for any other. The only thing the officer could request from him was to ask if he would maybe email him some copies for his files. In which case it is something you could choose to do or not. And since it would have been a request, would be legal. Taking of property is still not allowed yet. Which I will not go into how if certain people that supposedly serve us would have it would be different. 
Also the photographer at no point and time has to be polite. That is so long as they are civil. This means no obscenities, and no insulting behavior. I can be very civil, and polite while being uncooperative at the same time. Though I have had many years of practice in perfecting that art form when dealing with authorities.
I think what bothers me more is that people see someone standing up for their rights as being stupid. Because even being stupid is a right, so long as your stupidity is not in doing something illegal.

Joves wrote: Which according to what I saw when I first saw this item, would not have mattered to that officer. He would have wanted the same thing even if the photographer was further away. This is due to the fact that a fellow officer was involved, not for any other.

 And not just because you're agreeing with me.

It's possible that the officer did not understand that it is perfectly legal and acceptable to record the actions of public servants during the execution of their duties. The highest courts in the land have confirmed this is so. 

I'll bet he wan't bothering the clowns with the mobile phones.

In any event, well said, Joves.

Seems like the situation could have been handled better; the police maybe need to firm up their procedures on who allows access at the scene of an accident or crime or other incident. It does make a difference having credentials; that allows access that the general public does not have. Chances are, the police would know reporters and news photographers in their area and vice versa. I'd expect they'd have procedures on how they cooperate with authorities at the scene.