When police are in the picture

[Bob Hubbard]

Interesting article concerning photographing police while performing their jobs in Canada.

http://www.thestar.com/article/487990

But keeping the cameras rolling is an important safeguard for society. Police have extraordinary power. Public scrutiny discourages abuse of that power. Videotape of the Rodney King beating in 1991 transformed Los Angeles policing. In Canada, video of the Taser-death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski prompted long overdue questions about when and how the electroshock weapons should be used.


That doesn't mean photographers have the right to get in the way, to trample over evidence or trespass on crime scenes or private property. They don't. Nor does it mean that photographers should shoot anything in sight. There are important questions of taste, ethics, news judgment and privacy that must be considered any time the lens is raised. But it is not up to police to make those judgments; it is up to photographers, editors and sometimes the courts.

 

[MA-Caver]

Over eager photojournalist/news-hounds do need to have a short leash put on them so that evidence isn't compromised and a case thrown out of court because someone tampered with evidence.
Sure you get a few bucks more getting that exclusive shot of a crime scene but... well... anyway... what are Zoom Lenses for?
Keep your *** behind the lines and take the picture. Cops are there to assess what happened and how it happened.

 

[jks9199]

There's a tough balancing act, on both sides of the crime scene tape.

The journalist wants to tell the story. They want the pictures to support the story. They want to know what's going on so that they can relay it to their readers or viewers. They want to capture the STORY; they want to capture that cop screwing up or using inappropriate force. They want the tearjerker qoute from the victim...

Meanwhile, the cop wants to do his job. He probably doesn't want his face on the newscast or front page. And he doesn't want the crime scene messed up, or crucial information released to people incorrectly or when he's not ready for it to get out. (Do you know how many ****ing white vans I searched during the Malvo/Mohammad sniper incident?) If we don't keep some details to ourselves -- we may not be able to sort out the inevitable nutjobs from the real tips. (I once had a guy come in and confess to a very well publicized murder... He didn't do it.)

There are tactical issues, as well. Not too long ago, a SWAT team I'm familiar with discovered that the press was nonchalantly broadcasting their approach to a barricaded hostage situation. Anyone really want to guess whether the hostage taker had a tv available at that point? Anyone want to make that bet if their loved ones are either hostages or on that tactical team? A key element in successful tactical ops is SURPRISE.

And -- to be honest -- who wants to have their screwup make the nightly news?

It's not easy, and there are no easy answers. That's one reason we have Public Information Officers. In the US, the press have certain rights; I don't know what it's like in Canada. But they can't exercise those rights at the expense of public safety or the investigation of the case.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

While it does not relate to police persay, this discussion brings to mind a story my father told me some time ago. He's a paramedic with the fire department, and was responding to a call when a TV crewman decided to get right up into the action, pointing his lense right alongside the rescue team trying to revive the patient. Not only was the cameraman crossing the boundary lines, he was putting the patient's life at risk by getting in the paramedics' way. I can't remember how he was dealt with, but I know he wasn't on the scene for much long afterward.

Media access, especially as a safeguard against police abuses, is a key element of any free society, but that has to be balanced against the interest of making sure police, paramedics, and other civil servicemen are able to do their jobs.

 

[MJS]

Of course the media wants to do their job, and that job is reporting an incident of a high nature, to the public. This isn't always a bad thing, although many times it can be. How many times have we seen cellphone footage given to the media, and that is what they build a story from? What about clips, such as one that was posted here, about a reporter in Denver, I beleve, that was treated badley by the police? Its stories like that, the half baked ones, that IMO do more harm than good.

While the reporters are doing their job, they also need to respect the job of the police, EMS, fire, etc. and let them do their jobs without interuption. Its a stressful situation already, without having to worry about whether or not the media is getting in the way, filming something they shouldn't be, such as what JKS mentioned.

 

[tshadowchaser]

While the reporters are doing their job, they also need to respect the job of the police, EMS, fire, etc. and let them do their jobs without interuption. Its a stressful situation already, without having to worry about whether or not the media is getting in the way, filming something they shouldn't be, such as what JKS mentioned.

That about sums up my thoughts

Now we have been talking mostly about the media but what about those civilians that think they should be filming everything the police do. Is this a good thing? Will police act differently if they know they are on film?

 

[jks9199]

That about sums up my thoughts

Now we have been talking mostly about the media but what about those civilians that think they should be filming everything the police do. Is this a good thing? Will police act differently if they know they are on film?

I think most of us cops today simply assume that someone will be filming us when something happens. There are simply too many cameras out there, and too many that have the first reaction of "let's get the pictures/video!" rather than help or simply stand by.

But I do want to say something about the media. As a general rule, I've found that most professional reporters/journalists are pretty good about respecting the lines, and working with law enforcement when necessary and appropriate. Yeah, lots of them are all too happy to get a story of cops doing something wrong -- and I'm ALWAYS cautious when I have to talk to the press -- but most reporters that I've personally dealt with have been pretty fair.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

That about sums up my thoughts

Now we have been talking mostly about the media but what about those civilians that think they should be filming everything the police do. Is this a good thing? Will police act differently if they know they are on film?

The simple answer to that, I think, is that if the police would act differently if they know they're on film, then it's a good thing that a camera's there. If they're doing their job and not abusing their authority, the camera (assuming this is a situation of full public view) shouldn't be a problem. Unless, of course, the cameraman is blocking the way to the police cruiser or something equally stupid.